2000 PLP (Trib (PTD)
N/A
| Citation | 2000 PLP (Trib (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Khawaja Farooq Saeed, Judicial Member and Muhammad Munir Qureshi, |
| Parties | N/A |
| Primary Law | Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2000 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 2000 PLP (Trib (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Pakistan bench comprising: Khawaja Farooq Saeed, Judicial Member and Muhammad Munir Qureshi,.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2000 PLP (Trib (PTD) (N/A). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Shahid Abbas for Appellant.
- Mrs. Talat Altaf, D.R. for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 13th May, 2000.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 65
Re-opening of assessment
Assessment was finalized under Self Assessment Scheme
Assessee claimed less expenses of electricity bills in profit and loss account than the actual ones
Assessment was re-opened considering the same, a piece of evidence amounting to "definite information"
Law required a piece of information covered under the term "definite information" which leads to believe that income of the assessee had either escaped assessment or had been under assessed
Lesser claim of expenditure may be a piece of evidence but it did not give the impression that the income of the assessee had either been under assessed or escaped assessment
Assessment re-opened under S.65 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 was considered to be without legal justification and the same was cancelled by the Appellate Tribunal. 1998 PTD (Trib.) 973 and I.T.A. No. 1726/LB of 1998 ref.
Judgment & Decree
Mrs. Talat Altaf, D.R. for Respondent. Date of hearing: 13th May, 2000. KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED (JUDICIAL MEMBER).
Re opening of assessment is being challenged. As an alternative plea the estimate and partial modification in sales is also being assailed.
2. Brief facts on record are that assessee return was accepted under self-assessment scheme. Later it appeared that assessee had claimed expenses amounting to Rs.10, 188 on account of electricity while his actual bills were Rs.15,
758. It was considered to be a piece of evidence amounting to definite information and the case - was re-opened and subsequently assessed. The assessee argument before first appellate authority and before us with lessor claim-of an expenditure may be a piece of evidence but it did not give the impression that the income of the assessee has either been under assessed or escaped assessment in any manner. If the assessee had claimed more expenses; income would have been reduced. He, therefore, placed reliance upon 1988 PTD (Trib.) 973 and ITA No. 1726/LB of 1998 order dated 3-12-1998 wherein the Tribunal has held that such an information is surely a piece of evidence which results in decreasing income by a certain amount and thus, it does not give justification for reopening of assessment. Further, the Tribunal said that the relevant clause of the voice under which the assessment is re-opened must also be ticked. Both flaws exist in the present notice, the learned A. R. remarked.
3. The learned D.R., however, said the amount not disclosed attracts the provision of section 13, which presupposes concealment and thus, section 65 comes into operation. We do not consider the arguments of learned DR to be valid one. The issue before us is re-opening of the assessment, which has already been finalised by the department. The law requires a piece of information covered under the term definite information, which leads to believe that the income of the assessee has either escaped or under assessed. Had the assessee claimed more expenses the result would have been decrease in income and not enhancement. This situation is not covered under section
65. The result of above discussion is that the re opening is considered without legal justification. The same is, therefore, cancelled.
4. Since we have already decided the case in favour of the assessee the alternative plea needs no separate adjudication:
5. Order accordingly. C: M. A./M.A.K./33/Tax(Trib.) Order accordingly.