1995 PLP (Trib (PTD)
N/A
| Citation | 1995 PLP (Trib (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Ch. Irshad Ahmad Judicial Member and Junejo M. Iqbal, Accountant Member |
| Parties | N/A |
| Primary Law | Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995 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 1995 PLP (Trib (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Pakistan bench comprising: Ch. Irshad Ahmad Judicial Member and Junejo M. Iqbal, Accountant Member.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995 PLP (Trib (PTD) (N/A). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nasir Hussain D.R. for Appellant
- Ghulam Abbas Chattha and M. Ilyas Mian for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 18th April, 1995.
- We have heard Mr. Nasir Hussain, D.R. for the I.T.O. and Messrs Ghulam Abbas Chuttha and M. Ilyas Mian, Advocates for the assessee.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 59(1)
Self-assessment Scheme (1991-92), para.4(ii)
C.B.R. Circular No.22 of 1991 dated 21st July, 1991
Selection of case of assessee for total audit
Suspicion of gross understatement of income-- Material evidence
Selection of case for total audit on the ground that assessee's income had remained almost static although the capital available with the assessee could have resulted in higher income
Held, mere fact that an assessee s income had remained static over a period of few year would not amount to a definite information based on material evidence to suspect gross understatement of assessee's income. .
Judgment & Decree
CH. IRSHAD AHMAD (JUDICIAL MEMBER).
The assessee, an individual derives income from dealings in' hosiery items on retail/whole-sale basis. The return of income filed under the Self-Assessment Scheme for the year 1991-92 the assessee declared her net income at Rs.73,000 which was worked out as under:-- Sales (estimated) Rs.862,400 G.P. @ 12.5% Rs.1,07,800 Less expenses Rs. 34.800 Net income Rs. 73,000 However, the I.T.O. selected the assessee's return for total audit under paragraph 4(ii) of the Scheme and ultimately made assessment at net income of Rs.2,40,000 which was computed as under:-- Stock taken as discussed above Rs. 2,75,000 Sales are Rs.2,75,000 x 8 = Rs.22,00,000 G.P. @a 12-1/2% as declared Rs.2,75,000 Less expenses claimed 34800 Net income 2,40,200 On assessee's appeal the Appeal Commissioner found that the assessee's return was not selected for total audit on valid grounds. Resultantly the assessment was vacated and directions for the acceptance of the income declared in the return were issued. Through this appeal the I.T.O. has objected to the order of the Appeal Commissioner on the ground that he was quite justified to select the assessee's return for total audit. We have heard Mr. Nasir Hussain, D.R. for the I.T.O. and Messrs Ghulam Abbas Chuttha and M. Ilyas Mian, Advocates for the assessee. After hearing the D.R. and the counsel for the assessee, we are not satisfied that there are sufficient grounds to interfere with the orders of the Appeal Commissioner. The only material on which the assessing officer decided to select the assessee's return for total audit, was that the assessee's declared income from 1987-88 to 1991-92 had remained almost static although the capital available with the assessee should have resulted in higher income. In our view the mere fact that an assessee's income had remained static over a period of few years does not amount to a definite information based on material evidence to suspect gross understatement of assessee's income, The I.T.O.'s appeal is rejected. M.BA./126/T Appeal dismissed.