1990 PLP (Trib (PTD)
N/A
| Citation | 1990 PLP (Trib (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Income‑tax Appellate Tribunal Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Saiyid Saeed Ashhad Judicial Member and Manzoor‑ul‑Haq, Accountant |
| Parties | N/A |
| Primary Law | Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 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 1990 PLP (Trib (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Income‑tax Appellate Tribunal Pakistan bench comprising: Saiyid Saeed Ashhad Judicial Member and Manzoor‑ul‑Haq, Accountant.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP (Trib (PTD) (N/A). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Shahid Jamal, D.R. for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 10th January, 1990.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 134(6)‑‑Stay application‑‑Recovery of tax‑‑Department had not resorted to any punitive or coercive measure for the recovery of the demand, nor had ordered attachment of any property of the assessee for recovering the demand‑‑No case thus, was made out by the assessee for granting stay in respect of the recovery of the tax demand as there was no danger or threat involved to the assessee either of attachment or sale of his properties or of his bank account etc. Sk. Jalaluddin, CA. for Applicant.
Judgment & Decree
SAIYID SAEED ASHHAD (JUDICIAL MEMBER).‑‑This Miscellaneous Application for grant of stay has been filed by the applicant praying therein that the tax demand of Rs. 2,98,01,480 may be stayed.
2. Mr. Jalaluddin, the learned CA. appearing on behalf of the applicant submitted that the tax levied on the applicant was beyond all proportions inasmuch as the paid‑up capital of the appellant's private limited company is only to the extent of Rs. 20,00,000 and it is not possible for the appellant to enter into business of such magnitude and to earn an income on which an Income Tax of about Rs. 3,00,00,000 could be charged. He further submitted that out of the sum of Rs. 10,72,86,273 added by the I.T.O. as income of the appellant under section 25(c) of the Income‑tax Ordinance, an amount of Rs. 9,73,00,000 was loan from sister concern. Mr. Shahid Jamal, the learned D.R, appearing on behalf of the Department vehemently opposed the stay application and submitted that no case was made out for grant of stay inasmuch as no coercive or punitive action has yet been resorted to by the Department for recovery of the above tax demand and the appellant had moved the above application merely on the basis of his apprehensions.
3. We have given due consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned representatives of the parties and have also perused the material on record. Mr. Jalaluddin, the learned A.R, of the applicant, candidly conceded that the Department had not resorted to any punitive or coercive measures for the recovery of the above demand, nor had ordered attachment of any property of the appellant for recovering the above tax demand. In view of the above, we are of the view that no case was made out for granting stay in respect of the recovery of the above tax demand, as there is no danger or threat involved to the appellant either of attachment or sale of his properties or of his bank account etc.
4. Accordingly, the above Miscellaneous Application stands rejected. M.B.A./901/T Stay refused.