2018 PLP (Trib (PTD)
C.I.R., R.T.O., ABBOTABAD Versus SHAHID MEHMOOD
| Citation | 2018 PLP (Trib (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Inland Revenue Appellate Tribunal |
| Bench Members | Nadeem Dar, Accountant Member |
| Parties | C.I.R., R.T.O., ABBOTABAD Versus SHAHID MEHMOOD |
| Primary Law | Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2018 PLP (Trib (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2018 PLP (Trib (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Inland Revenue Appellate Tribunal bench comprising: Nadeem Dar, Accountant Member.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2018 PLP (Trib (PTD) (C.I.R., R.T.O., ABBOTABAD Versus SHAHID MEHMOOD). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- None for Appellant.
- Usman Shaukat for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 177 & 214-C
Powers of Commissioner Inland Revenue and Federal Board of Revenue
Scope
Case of taxpayer was selected for audit by Commissioner Inland Revenue, and for non-compliance of notices by the taxpayer, ex parte order was passed
Commissioner Inland Revenue (Appeals), annulled assessment on the ground that Commissioner Inland Revenue was not empowered to select cases for audit
Powers of Ss.177 & 214-C of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 with the Federal Board of Revenue and Commissioner Inland Revenue, to select cases for audit were not mutually exclusive, but were concurrent, and both could select cases for audit
Order passed by Commissioner Inland Revenue (Appeals) was cancelled and that of the department restored.
Judgment & Decree
NADEEM DAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER.
This appeal has been filed by the department against the order No.95 dated 29.01.2013 passed by CIR(A), Peshawar.
2. Facts are, the appellant individual derives income from M/s. Shahid Crockery Store, Haripur. Tax year 2009 was selected for audit by CIR vide letter dated 07.04.2011 and for non-compliance of notices ex parte order was passed. CIR(A) Peshawar vide order dated 29.01.2013 annulled assessment on ground that CIR was not empowered to select case for audit in presence of section 214C which empowers FBR to select cases for audit-by relying on LHC decision in W.P. No. 393/2012 dated 10.05.2012. The department has filed 2nd appeal by placing reliance on judgment of Supreme Court that reversed paid LHC judgment.
3. By now, both LHC and IHC have passed numerous decisions to the effect that powers of sections 214C and 177 with the Board and with CIR, to select cases for audit are not mutually exclusive, but are concurrent and both can select persons for audit. Learned AR also cited PHC judgment in W.P. No. 249-A of 2015 (announced on 02.07.2015) para 11 thereof states:-- "...11. We also subscribe to the view adopted by the honorable Islamabad High Court and the Honorable Lahore High Court in a recent judgment for more than one reason..." This view subscribed to by honorable PHC, is earlier given at para No. 10 of its judgment, that; "... a contrary view has come to surface vide judgment of the Honorable Islamabad High Court dated 12.03.2013, and recent judgment of the Honorable Lahore High Court dated 27.05.2015, thereby dissenting from the view taken by an honorable bench of the same High Court in Messer Chenone Stores Limited.... ... the current prevailing view, reflected in the judgment of the honorable Islamabad High Court dated 12.03.2013, .... unequivocally hold that powers of commissioner under section 177 of ITO were independent of powers of the Board under section 214C of ITO and that nothing contained in section 214C ITO restricted powers of the commissioner to call for record or documents including books of accounts of the taxpayer for audit and to conduct audit under section 177 of the ITO..."
4. As such, order of the learned CIR(A) Peshawar is cancelled and that of the department dated 28.02.2012 is restored. HBT/24/Tax(Trib.) Appeal allowed.