1989 PLP (Trib (PTD)
N/A
| Citation | 1989 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 1989 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 1989 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: 1989 PLP (Trib (PTD) (N/A). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Fayyaz Ahmad Chaudhary for Appellant.
- Aftab Iqbal Loon. for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 15th November, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
S.13 (1) & (2)--Addition and finalisation of assessment by estimating the value of property purchased by" the assessee without issuing further notice under S. 13 (1)--Effect--Notice under S.13 ("1), held. was sine qua non before making an addition and failure to do so such addition would be liable to be deleted. I.TA. No. 2526/LR of 1986-87 ref.
Judgment & Decree
Fayyaz Ahmad Chaudhary for Appellant. Aftab Iqbal Loon. for Respondent. Date of hearing: 15th November, 1988. ABRAR HUSSAIN NAQVI (JUDICIAL MEMBER).--This is an appeal filed lay an individual deriving income from property and relates to the assessment year 1985-86. In this appeal the assessee is aggrieved against the addition of Rs.1,20,000 made by the I.T.O. under section 13 of the I.T.O. Ordinance.
2. The facts of the case are that the assessee purchased a property the value: of which was declared by the assessee at Rs.50,000 and the income from property was declared at R's.2,
500. The I.T.O. accepted the declared income from property but estimated the value of the property purchased by the assessee at Rs. 1,20,000 and thus total income was worked out at Rs.1,22,
500. The assessee has taken number of objections of factual as well as on legal plane. However, this appeal can be disposed of on the short ground that the learned assessing officer had is Wed a notice to the assesee under section 13 (2) of the I.T. Ordinance issuing a show-cause notice that as to why the value of the property should not be estimated at Rs. 1,20,
000. However, after determining the value of the property under section 13 (2) of the Ordinance the assessing officer had to issue a notice under section.13 (1) of the Ordinance so as to call for the explanation of the assessee to explain the nature and source of the investment. This has not been done and the learned D.R. conceded that no notice by as to confront the assessee with an amount of Rs.1,20,000 determined under section 13 (2) of the Ordinance was issued to the assessee. The learned D.R. relied upon the notice dated 31st January, 1988 but that notice was issued under section 13 (2) and reply of which was submitted by the assess on 4th February, 1988. Subsequently, without issuing a further notice under section 13 (1) the assessment was finah7cd on 22nd February; 1988. The Tribunal in a recent Full Bench decision in I.T.A No.2526 LR 1986-87 has held the such a notice is sine qua non before making an addition and failing which the addition has to be deleted. We therefore, direct that this addition made by the I.T.O. should be deleted. The appeal is accepted. M.B.A./564/T Appeal accepted.