2002 PLP (Trib (PTD)
N/A
| Citation | 2002 PLP (Trib (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Tauqir Afzal Malik, Judicial Member and |
| Parties | N/A |
| Primary Law | Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP (Trib (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2002 PLP (Trib (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Pakistan bench comprising: Muhammad Tauqir Afzal Malik, Judicial Member and.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP (Trib (PTD) (N/A). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- A.S. Jaffri for Appellant.
- Dr. Fazal Muhammad Abrejo, D.R. for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 29th June, 2002:
Headnotes / Summary
S. 156
Loss assessed
Assessment was rectified as there was mistake apparent on record and consequently, assessments for the next two years were also rectified
In the original assessments for the charge year 1995,-96 there was a mistake which was apparent from the record
Assessment order was correctly rectified by the Assessing Officer though the method of computing income by the Assessing Officer was different and resultant income remained the same
Order contained a mistake which was apparent from record and was rightly rectified by the Assessing Officer, though his method of computing income was different
Other two assessments were consequent to the rectified assessment for the charge year' 1995-96 and also in accordance with law which were upheld by the Appellate Tribunal.
Judgment & Decree
In this connection the AR of the assessee worked out for all the three years under appeal his income loss which is annexed as "A" which has been placed on record and is as follows: Assessment Year 1995-96: Receipt estimated Rs.15,000,000 G.P. applied @ 20% Rs.30,00,000 Less: Gross Loss Rs.52.13.128 (Rs.22,13,128) Add Admn expenses Rs. 27.54.370 Add Admn expenses (Rs.49,61,498) (i) Add Backs Rs. 2,66,906 (ii) Addition under Rs.11.60.000 Rs .14.26.906 section 13(1)(d) Net Loss (Rs.35,40,592) Asstt. Year 1996-97: Assessed income Rs.5,00,000 B/F Loss (Rs.35.40.592) Loss assessed (Rs.30,40,592) Asstt. Year 1997-98: Assessed income Rs.20,00,000 B/F Loss (Rs.30.40.592) Net Loss (Rs.10,40,592) In .rebuttal to the same the . DR worked his computation of income for the charge year 1995-96 which is annexed as "B". This has also been placed on file which is as under:
CORRECT COMPUTATION OF INCOME (ASSESSMENT YEAR 1995-96) Net Loss as per accounts Rs.7,967,498 Receipts estimated Rs.15,000,000 G.P. @ 20% Rs.3,000,000 Add Gross Loss Rs.5,213,128 Rs.8.213.128 Rs.245,630 Add backs Rs. 266,906 Addition under section 13(1) Rs.1.160.000 Total income: Rs.1,672,536 Resultantly, in the original assessments for the charge year 1995-96 there was a mistake which was apparent from the record. Therefore, the assessment order was correctly rectified by the Assessing Officer though the method of computing income by the Assessing Officer was different from above. However, resultant income remained the same. It has been proved without' any A shadow of doubt that the order contained a mistake which was apparent from record and was rightly rectified by the DCIT. Though his method of computing income was different from the above. As far the other two appeals for the charge years 1996-97 and 1997-98 are concerned they are consequent to the rectified assessment for the charge year 1995-96 and also in accordance with law, hence upheld. All the three appeals of the assessee being devoid of any merits are dismissed. C.M.A./M.A.K./453/Tax(Trib.) Order accordingly.