1997 PLP 1113 (PTD)
N/A
| Citation | 1997 PLP 1113 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Tauqir Afzal Malik, Judicial Member and Iftikhar Ahmad Bajwa, Accountant Member. |
| Parties | N/A |
| Primary Law | (b) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), (a) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1997 PLP 1113 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), (a) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1997 PLP 1113 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Pakistan bench comprising: Muhammad Tauqir Afzal Malik, Judicial Member and Iftikhar Ahmad Bajwa, Accountant Member..
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1997 PLP 1113 (PTD) (N/A). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Rana Munir Hussain for Appellant.
- Mrs. Sameera Yasin, D.R. for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 7th November, 1995.
Headnotes / Summary
S.5
Assessee himself had filed return before I.T.O. at place where he was working at relevant time
Objection of assessee as to jurisdiction and legality of assessment, held, was misconceived
I.T.O. had jurisdiction to make assessment of assessee in circumstances. --S.135 (4)(c)
Appellant objected that C. I. T. (A), had not taken into consideration grounds of appeal while passing order. Appellate Tribunal set aside. And remanded case for giving fresh decision after taking into consideration grounds taken before him.
Judgment & Decree
Mrs. Sameera Yasin, D.R. for Respondent. Date of hearing: 7th November, 1995. MUHAMMAD TAUQIR AFZAL MALIK (JUDICIAL MEMBER)-- This is an appeal by the appellant mainly on the following four points:
(1) Jurisdiction. (2) Estimation of receipts. (3) Add-backs in profit and loss account. (4) Issuance of notice under-section 116.
2. As far as the first point is concerned this is to be pointed out that the assessee himself filed a return before the I.T.O., Gujranwala where he was working at the relevant time. Therefore, his contention that the assessing officer had no jurisdiction under section 5 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 and the assessment order is ab initio void and illegal is misconceived. The I.T.O. had the jurisdiction to make the assessment. On the other three grounds i.e. estimation of receipts, add-backs in profit and loss account and notice under section 116, it has been asserted that the grounds taken by him before the C.I.T. (A) on the above three points has not been taken into consideration while passing the order. The perusal of the C.I.T, (Appeals) order shows that the abovesaid contention has got some weight. Therefore, the order of the C.I.T. (A) is set aside and the case is remanded to the C.I.T.(A) for giving a fresh decision after taking into consideration the grounds taken before him. The appeal is accepted as above. C.M. S./182/Trib. Order accordingly.