1992 PLP (Trib (PTD)
N/A
| Citation | 1992 PLP (Trib (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Abrar Hussain Naqvi, Judicial Member and A.A. Zuberi, Accountant Member |
| Parties | N/A |
| Primary Law | Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 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 1992 PLP (Trib (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Pakistan bench comprising: Abrar Hussain Naqvi, Judicial Member and A.A. Zuberi, Accountant Member.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 PLP (Trib (PTD) (N/A). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Farrukh Raheel for Appellant.
- Shaukat Ali Babar, D.R. for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 28th May, 1991.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 59
Return submitted under Self Assessment Scheme
Even if the signatures of the assessee on the power of attorney in favour of authorised representative were doubtful, this was not a ground on which the assessee's return could be rejected under self-assessment scheme
Assessing Officer, at best could refuse to recognize the authorised representative as assessee's authorised representative.
Judgment & Decree
ABRAR HUSSAIN NAQVI (JUDICIAL MEMBER).
This is an appeal filed by an individual deriving income as an Octroi Contractor and relates to the assessment year 1987-88.
2. The facts of the case under which this appeal has arisen are that the assessee filed return at an income of Rs.80,000 under SA.S. as an immunity case. The ITO, however, processed the assessee's case under normal law on the ground that the learned A.R. who appeared on behalf of the assessee produced his power of attorney on which the signatures of the assessee did not tally with those appearing on the return. Solely on this ground the assessing officer took out the assessee's case out of the SA.S and consequently the case was processed under the normal law.
3. The learned AR of the assessee first of all contended that the ITO was wrong in observing that the signatures on the power of attorney did not tally with those on the return. Secondly, it was contended that even if it be so, this was not a ground on which the assessee's return could be taken out of the SA.S.
4. We have examined the signatures on the power of attorney of the assessee and compared those signatures on the return as well as on the memo of appeal before us. We find that the doubt expressed by the assessing officer was ill-founded as the signatures do tally. Even otherwise this was hardly a ground on which it could be said that the assessee's return was not qualified under the S.A.S. The assessee had riled the return on 14-11-1987. The wealth statement was not filed by the assessee alongwith return and consequently a short document notice was issued to the assessee on 9-3-1988. According to the learned counsel for the assessee this document was submitted on 15-03-1988 and, therefore, there was possibly on objection left on the basis of which the assessee's case could be excluded from SA.S.
5. We are inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the assessee. Even if the signatures of the assessee on the power of attorney in favour of AIZ were doubtful, this was not a ground on which the assessee's return could be rejected under SA.S. At best the assessing officer could refuse to recognise the learned A.R. as the A.R. of the assessee. For these reasons, we set aside the impugned orders and direct the ITO to re-examine the assessee's case in the light of the S.A.S for the assessment year 1987-88. If the assessee's retort, qualifies under the aforesaid scheme, the assessee's return may be accepted under S.A.S.
6. As a result of the above discussion, the assessee's appeal stands disposed of as indicated above. M.BA./212/T Order accordingly.