1999 PLP (Trib (PTD)
N/A
| Citation | 1999 PLP (Trib (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Sharif Chaudhry, Accountant Member and Khalid Waheed Ahmed, Judicial Member |
| Parties | N/A |
| Primary Law | Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1999 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 1999 PLP (Trib (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Pakistan bench comprising: Muhammad Sharif Chaudhry, Accountant Member and Khalid Waheed Ahmed, Judicial Member.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1999 PLP (Trib (PTD) (N/A). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- A. H. Qamer, I.T.P. for Appellant.
- Farooq Tahir, D.R. for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 13th April, 1999.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss.108(b), 50(1) & 50(4)
Income Tax Rules, 1982, Rr.53 & 61
Penalty under S.108(b), Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 for default of non-compliance with Ss.50(l) & 50(4) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 and Rr.53 & 61, Income Tax Rules, 1982
Provision of S.108(b) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 did not include defaults under S.50(1), S.50(4) & Rr.53, 61 of Income Tax Rules, 1982
Such penalty imposed by Assessing Officer was not sustainable under law which was deleted by the Tribunal being illegal. 1998 PTD (Trib.) 3507 rel.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD SHARIF CHAUDHRY (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER).
Appeal has been filed by the private limited company to assail the appellate order, dated 9-7-1998 made by Commissioner Income-tax Appeal Zone-1, Lahore. Appellant's A.R. and respondent's D.R. have been heard and relevant orders and documents have been perused.
2. The Income-tax Officer passed order under section 108(b) of the Income Tax Ordinance in which penalty amounting to Rs.330,400 was imposed for assessee's alleged failure to make deduction of tax from various payments under subsections of section 50 and for his failure to furnish statutory statements in respect of these deductions on monthly basis. But the Income-tax Officer did not mention any section of the Income Tax Ordinance for whose non compliance the penalty was being levied. In the chart which has been made part of the assessment order, the I.T.O. has, however, mentioned assessee's default of non-compliance with section 50(1) and section 50(4) and Income Tax Rules 53 and 61 for which penalty was calculated and imposed. Against this treatment of the Income-tax Officer the 'assessee company filed appeal before the learned C.I.T. who in his impugned appellate order set aside the penalty order of the I.T.O. for de novo action. The assessee company has come up in appeal before the I.T.A.T. to challenge this action of the learned CIT.
3. It has been contended in the grounds of the appeal that the Income -tax Officer has imposed penalty for default of section 50(1) and section 50(4) and Income Tax Rules 53 and 61 for which no penalty is leviable under section 108(b) of the Income Tax Ordinance. In support of this contention the appellant's A.R. has quoted a judgment of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal reported as 1998 PTD (Trib.) 3507 in which the I.T.A.T. has held that penalty under section 108(b) cannot be imposed for non-compliance with rule 53 of the Income-tax Officer was illegal according the A.R. of the assessee so the learned CIT should have cancelled the penalty order instead of setting aside the same.
4. We have considered the contentions of the appellant and the arguments of the A.R. Penalty under section 108(b) of the Income Tax Ordinance can be imposed for failure to submit any certificate, statement, accounts or information under sections 51, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 143-A, 143-B or
144. So, the list of sections for default of which penalty can be imposed is exhaustive one and it does not include defaults under section 50(I) and section 50(4) and Income Tax Rule 53 and
61. Therefore, penalty imposed by the Income-tax Officer in the instant case under section 108(b) for assessee's default of non-compliance with sections 50(1) and 50(4) and Income Tax Rules 53 and 61 is not sustainable under the law. It would, therefore, meet the ends of justice if the penalty imposed by the Income-tax Officer is deleted being illegal and assessee's appeal is accepted. C.M.A./57/Tax(Trib.) Appeal accepted.