2005 PLP (Trib (PTD)
N/A
| Citation | 2005 PLP (Trib (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Tauqir Afzal Malik, Judicial Member and Muhammad Munir Qureshi, Accountant Member |
| Parties | N/A |
| Primary Law | Finance Act (XII of 1991) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP (Trib (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Finance Act (XII of 1991) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2005 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 Muhammad Munir Qureshi, Accountant Member.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2005 PLP (Trib (PTD) (N/A). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Najam-ud-Din Khan, D.R. for Appellant.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 27th September, 2003.
Headnotes / Summary
S.12(4)(7)
Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), S.134-- Deletion of penalty
Appellant Department had contended that deletion of penalty levied on assessee under S.12(7) of Finance Act, 1991 was unjustified and reliance placed by CIT(A) on ITA No. 1872/LB/97 (Assessment year 1992-93) dated 26-5-1998 was misconceived in law
Rationale for deletion of penalty in the case relied upon by CIT(A) was that Central Board of Revenue having issued multiple Circulars on matter pertaining to filing of Corporate Assets Tax return, same had confused and confounded the corporate assessees and for that reason it would not be proper to levy penalty under S.12(7) of Finance Act, 1991 for default on their part
Such was not the position in case of assessee as it was clearly indicated that it was a legal requirement for filing of Corporate Assets Tax return vide S.12(4) of Finance Act, 1991 in a case of those corporate assessees whose assets exceeded stipulated threshold
Even Supreme Court had unequivocally rejected legal challenge to levy of Corporate Assets Tax holding that Assessing Officer was competent to .make Corporate Assets Tax assessment and also to impose additional tax and penalty in case of statutory default-- Would not be' correct to say that assessee was not clear in its mind regarding statutory obligation under Corporate Assets Tax law-- Failure of assessee to file Corporate Assets Tax return and. not to respond to show-cause notice issued to him, had rightly resulted in levy of penalty
Order of CIT(A) was vacated, in circumstances. I.T.A. No.1872/LB of 1997 and W.T.AR No.1230/LB of 2000 ref.
Judgment & Decree
Date of hearing: 27th September, 2003. This appeal by Revenue arises out of order of the CIT(A), Zone-I, Lahore, dated 10-10-2000.
2. It is the Departmental contention that deletion of penalty levied under section 12(7) of the Finance Act, 1991 was unjustified and reliance placed by CIT(A) on ITA No. 1872/LB/97 (Assessment Year 1992-93), dated 26-5-1998, is misconceived in law.
3. According to the DR, the case of the assessee/respondent is not "on all fours" with the case dealt with in I.T.A. No. 1872/LB of 1997 (Assessment year, 1992-93), dated 26-5-1998. That being so, it is contended that levy of penalty under section 12(7) is consistent with statutory stipulation and should therefore be upheld.
4. Assessee/respondent is not present and no adjournment has been sought. The appeal will be decided in assessee's absence on merits.
5. We have looked into the matter and we find that the rationale for deletion of penalty under section 12(7) in I.T.A. No. 1872/LB of 1997 (Assessment year, 1992-93), dated 26-5-1098 was that the C.B.R. having issued multiple circulars on matter pertaining to filing of CAT return only confused and confounded the Corporate assessee's and for, that reason it would not be proper to levy penalty under section 12(7) for default on their part. In the case of the present assessee, however, we find that it should have been abundantly clear given the assessments, made under CAT in a large number of cases that there was indeed a legal requirement for filing of Corporate Assets Tax return vide section 12(4) of the Finance Act, 1991 in the case of all those corporate assessee's whose assets exceeded the stipulated threshold. Morel importantly, even the precise composition of the assets envisaged under CAT law had become quite clear as a result of the judgments recorded by the ITAT. Not only have many CAT assessments been made and appeals decided by the ITAT but furthermore even the vires of levy of Corporate Assets Tax had been challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan and judgment had been passed by the apex Court (2001) 84 Tax
117. The apex Court had unequivocally rejected the legal challenge to levy of Corporate Assets Tax and had held that the Assessing Officer was competent to make Corporate ' Assets Tax assessments and also to impose additional tax and penalty in case of statutory default. Under these "changed circumstances" therefore, we hold that it would not be correct to say that the present assessee was not clear in its mind regarding the statutory obligation under CAT law. "Much water has thus flowed under the bridge" since the Tribunal pronounced judgment in I.T.A. No. 1872/1_13 of 1997 (A.Y. 1992-93), dated 26-5-1998. The failure of the present assessee to file CAT return and not to respond to show-cause notices issued under section 12(7) has therefore rightly resulted in levy of penalty under section 12(7). Importantly the Tribunal in W.T.A. No. 1230/LB of 2000 (Assessment Year, 1992-93), dated 15-4-2002, has upheld the levy of penalty under section 12(7) as the circumstances then indicated that there was no confusion regarding the legal requirement for filing of CAT return, as in the case of the present assessee. We will accordingly vacate the order of the CIT(A) and reinstate the order of the DCIT.
6. Resultantly, the departmental appeal is accepted. H.B.T./324/Tax (Trib.) Appeal accepted.