2003 PLP (Trib (PTD)
N/A
| Citation | 2003 PLP (Trib (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Income‑tax Appellate Tribunal Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Inam Ellahi Sheikh, Chairman and Munsif Khan Minhas, Judicial Member |
| Parties | N/A |
| Primary Law | Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 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 2003 PLP (Trib (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Income‑tax Appellate Tribunal Pakistan bench comprising: Inam Ellahi Sheikh, Chairman and Munsif Khan Minhas, Judicial Member.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2003 PLP (Trib (PTD) (N/A). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Boota Khan, D.R. for Appellant.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 19th July, 2003.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Ss. 108 & 50(2)(b)‑‑‑Penalty for failure to furnish return of total income and certain statements‑‑‑Reduction in penalty by First Appellate Authority‑‑‑Appeal for petty amount of penalty ‑‑‑Validity‑‑Mere relief of Rs.3,500 in penalty without involvement of any question of law should have been avoided because filing of the appeal‑ required a lot of expenditure which should best be avoided‑‑‑Appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal.
Judgment & Decree
Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 19th July, 2003. INAM ELLAHI SHEIKH (CHAIRMAN).‑‑‑This departmental appeal is directed against an order, dated 21‑2‑2002 recorded by the learned AAC, Sargodha to agitate the reduction in the penalty under section 108 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 (hereafter called the 1979 Ordinance from Rs.4,000 to Rs.500.
2. The relevant facts in brief are that the Assessing Officer imposed a penalty of Rs.4,000 for stated default of more than eight months in filing of statements under section 143 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 in respect of withholding tax under section 50(2)(B) of the 1979 Ordinance. The learned CIT(A) found the explanation of the assessee to be reasonable and reduced the penalty to Rs.500.
3. The learned DR has not been able to substantiate the appeal which is found to be petty and frivolous. The department must consider the pros and cons of filing of an appeal. A mere relief of Rs.3,500 in penalty without the involvement of any question of law should have been avoided because the proceedings as well as the filing of the appeal require a lot of expenditure which should best be avoided. The appeal is dismissed. C.M.A./849/Tax(Trib.) Appeal dismissed.