1992 PLP (Trib (PTD)
N/A
| Citation | 1992 PLP (Trib (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Syed Kabirul Hasan, Judicial Member and A.A. Zuberi, Accountant Member |
| Parties | N/A |
| Primary Law | Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1981 |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 PLP (Trib (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1981 as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1992 PLP (Trib (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Pakistan bench comprising: Syed Kabirul Hasan, Judicial Member and A.A. Zuberi, Accountant Member.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 PLP (Trib (PTD) (N/A). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- F.D. Qaiser, D.R. for Appellant.
- Basarul Islam, I.T.P. for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
R.10
Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), S.134
Where the grounds of appeal are vague and do not specify the quantum, of declared sales, the figures adopted by the Assessing Officer and the relief ordered by the Appellate Commissioner, such grounds do not come up to the requirement of R.10, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1981
Judgment & Decree
1. These two appeals by the Department relate to assessment years 1988- 89 and 1989-90. These assail consolidated order, dated 28th July, 1991 passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeal) Zone-3, Lahore. The Respondent "registered firm" is engaged in the import of scientific goods and chemicals.
2. The scrutiny of the appeal memo reveals that identical grounds have been taken in both the years which read as under: (i) The orders of the learned CIT (Appeals) is bad in law and on the facts of the case. (ii) The learned CIT (Appeals-III) was not justified to allow relief in sales as the assessee himself accepted the rejection of accounts. (iii) The reduction in sales allowed by learned CIT (A) is without any cogent reasons when the assessee admits that local purchases and sales are not verifiable.
3. It is evident that the grounds are vague and do not specify the quantum of declared sales, the figures adopted by the assessing officer and the relief ordered by the learned Commissioner. Such vague grounds do not come up to the requirements of Rule 10 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules. We, therefore, feel no hesitation in holding that the appeals are incompetent for admission. M.B.A./1614/T Order accordingly.