1987 PLP (Trib (PTD)
N/A
| Citation | 1987 PLP (Trib (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Sikandar Hayat Khan, Accountant Member |
| Parties | N/A |
| Primary Law | (a) Income-tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), (b) Income-tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP (Trib (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Income-tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), (b) Income-tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP (Trib (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Pakistan bench comprising: Sikandar Hayat Khan, Accountant Member.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP (Trib (PTD) (N/A). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Javed Ahmed Qureshi for Appellant.
- Maqbool Hussain Shah D.R. for Respondent.
- Date of hearing; 3rd August, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 2(41) & 55--Filing of Return by assessee--Return has to be verified in the prescribed manner--Assessee is required to affix his signatures on the Return--Omission to affix signatures on Return by assessee is certainly fatal rendering Return invalid.
Ss. 2(41), 55, 59 & 62--Return filed by assessee in time found be invalid on ground of assessee's omission to sign same--Return: filed by assessee after the last prescribed date would not make eligible for being treated as a return under the Self-Assessment Scheme--Assessment relating to relevant charge year therefore was correctly finalised under S.62 of the Ordinance.
Judgment & Decree
"Return of total income" means the return of total income in the prescribed form, setting forth such particulars and accompanied by such statement, certificates and other documents, and verified in such manner, as may be prescribed;"
4. The above conclusion also finds support from the- return itself, which spells out its verification. In this connection verification of the return as given on pages 602-603 of the Ordinance published by Tax Publications (Private Ltd.), is given below:- I, the undersigned, solemnly declare that to the best of my knowledge and belief- (a) the information given in the above statement is correct and complete; and (b) the amount of investments and other particulars are truly stated. Signature
Dated
Name in Block Letters
(2) The return of total income required to be furnished under, section 55 shall, in the case of persons deriving income under the Heads specified in Section 15, shall be in the following form and shall be verified in the manner and accompanied by the statements and certificates indicated therein: - (i) Please fill in all relevant columns carefully as any omission or incorrect entry can adversely affect the final assessment. (ii) In case the total income of the assessee is more than Rs.50,000, Wealth statement under Section 58 must be filed on the prescribed form."
5. On a careful analysis of the definition of return of total income and form of verification as set out above, it is my considered opinion that the assessee was required to affix his signatures on the return. Its omission was certainly fatal as is evident from the fate of assessment. Therefore, the return filed on 10-10-1985 was rightly held to be invalid. A necessary corollary of this finding is that, return filed by the asses tee on 19-11-1985, after the last date which expired on 15-10-1985, did not make it eligible for being treated as a return under the Self-Assessment Scheme. In this view of the matter assessment relating to the charge year 1985-86, was correctly finalized under Section 62 of the Ordinance.
6. The Income Tax Officer estimated turnover of the assessee at Rs.2,00,000 as against Rs.1,50,090 shown by him. In view of capital employed in the business estimate of turnover was not by any stretch of imagination either excessive or unreasonable. Therefore, it is upheld, Similarly gross profit rate of 15% in the case of a hardware dealer being reasonable is confirmed.
7. In consequence of the above order appeal of the assessee, which is devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed. M.B.A./413/T Appeal dismissed.