2013 PLP (Trib (PTD)
C.I.R., R.T.O., FAISALABAD Versus Messrs PROGRESSIVE WEAVERS (PVT.) LTD., FAISALABAD
| Citation | 2013 PLP (Trib (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Inland Revenue Appellate Tribunal of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Shahid Jamil Khan, Judicial Member and M.B. Tahir, Accountant Member |
| Parties | C.I.R., R.T.O., FAISALABAD Versus Messrs PROGRESSIVE WEAVERS (PVT.) LTD., FAISALABAD |
| Primary Law | Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2013 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 2013 PLP (Trib (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Inland Revenue Appellate Tribunal of Pakistan bench comprising: Shahid Jamil Khan, Judicial Member and M.B. Tahir, Accountant Member.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2013 PLP (Trib (PTD) (C.I.R., R.T.O., FAISALABAD Versus Messrs PROGRESSIVE WEAVERS (PVT.) LTD., FAISALABAD). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- ----S.221---Rectification of mistake---Application for recall of order---Department requested for expunction of some paragraphs from the order as the career of the Departmental Representative and Assessing Officer was in danger since they were called by the Federal Tax Ombudsman in contempt---Taxpayer stated that merits of main appeal shall not be prejudiced if such paragraphs were expunged at the request of department and after getting relief in first two appeals, latter appeals were not pressed by him---Validity---Appellate Tribunal treated the statement of taxpayer, that second set of appeals were not pressed, as mistake had been rectified under S.221 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001---Since department, requested for expunction of remarks in some paragraphs and it had not challenged the recommendations of Federal Tax Ombudsman before the President, such paragraphs were expunged from the order and were replaced by the paragraph " second set of appeals are dismissed being not pressed by learned counsel for appellant taxpayer".
- Imran Rashid for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 25th June, 2012.
- Mr. Muhammad Imran Rashid, Advocate High Court was called in person for assistance of the court as he represented the appellant and was present throughout the proceedings. Mr. Imran Rashid in his personal capacity agreed to assist court and submits that the objections about FTO's jurisdiction were endorsed by the then DR and Assessing Officer. However, assisting fairly, he submits that merits of main appeal shall not be prejudiced if these paragraphs are expunged at the request of department. On court's question he stated that after getting relief in first two appeals, latter appeals were not pressed by him.
- Perusal of the order dated 22-3-2001, in I.T.As. Nos.75 and 76/LB of 2010 and 1007 and 1008/LB of 2010, shows that first set of tax payer's appeals were accepted on legal ground that returns revised before substitution of subsection (6) of section 114 of Income Tax Ordinance. 2001, had attained the status of amended assessment order. The Show Cause Notices, therefore, were held against the law. We agree with the submissions by Mr. Muhammad Imran Rashid, Advocate High Court, that the application by department, if allowed shall not effect the main decision on merits.
- 5. Be that at it may, without going into the controversy that department had argued on FTO's jurisdiction or not? We treat the statement of Mr. Imran Rashid, Advocate High Court, that second set of appeals were not pressed, as mistake and are inclined to rectify the same under section 211 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, through this order.
Headnotes / Summary
Asif Hashmi, L.A. for Applicant.
Judgment & Decree
These four miscellaneous applications under section 221 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 are filed for rectification of order dated 22-3-2011 in I.T.As. Nos. 1007 and 1008/LB of 2010. Miscellaneous Application No.569/LB of 2011 relating to tax year 2005 and Application No.09/LB of 2012 relating to tax year 2006 are filed with the signature of Commissioner Inland Revenue (Mr. Shafqat Mahmood), RTO, Faisalabad, whereas remaining two applications i.e. Nos.10 and 11/LB of 2012 are filed by the then Assessing Officer in personal capacity. Perusal of these applications shows that there is no application for rectification available in the file, which means that these are wrongly entertained by the office. The numbers of later two applications are ordered to be deleted from the list, as the same were not applications in stricto senso.
2. While arguing on Applications Nos.569/LB of 2011 and 09/LB of 2012 Mr. Asif Hashmi, Legal Advisor for department submits that for the reasons mentioned in the applications, department is requesting for expunction of paragraphs Nos.7, 8 and 9 of order dated 22-3-2011. On court's query he submits that career of the then DR and Assessing Officer is in danger as they were called by FTO in contempt. He was also asked whether the recommendations of FTO were challenged before President, the answer was in negative. Mr. Muhammad Imran Rashid, Advocate High Court was called in person for assistance of the court as he represented the appellant and was present throughout the proceedings. Mr. Imran Rashid in his personal capacity agreed to assist court and submits that the objections about FTO's jurisdiction were endorsed by the then DR and Assessing Officer. However, assisting fairly, he submits that merits of main appeal shall not be prejudiced if these paragraphs are expunged at the request of department. On court's question he stated that after getting relief in first two appeals, latter appeals were not pressed by him.
3. Heard learned counsel and record perused. Perusal of the order dated 22-3-2001, in I.T.As. Nos.75 and 76/LB of 2010 and 1007 and 1008/LB of 2010, shows that first set of tax payer's appeals were accepted on legal ground that returns revised before substitution of subsection (6) of section 114 of Income Tax Ordinance. 2001, had attained the status of amended assessment order. The Show Cause Notices, therefore, were held against the law. We agree with the submissions by Mr. Muhammad Imran Rashid, Advocate High Court, that the application by department, if allowed shall not effect the main decision on merits.
4. Examination of orders contained in Paragraphs Nos. 7, 8, 9 reveals that it has no direct bearing on merits if the case, therefore, these remarks at the most could be taken as "obiter dicta" in the judgment. Particularly in presence of Mr. Imran Rashid's statement that later set of appeals were not pressed by him, after getting relief in first set of appeals. Because, second set of appeal was not withdrawn by the appellant taxpayer, therefore, legal position of Commissioner's (Appeals) orders, under these appeals, were discussed in this Para-graphs.
5. Be that at it may, without going into the controversy that department had argued on FTO's jurisdiction or not? We treat the statement of Mr. Imran Rashid, Advocate High Court, that second set of appeals were not pressed, as mistake and are inclined to rectify the same under section 211 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, through this order.
6. Since department, is requesting for expunctions of remarks in paragraphs Nos.7, 8, 9 and it had not challenged the recommendations of FTO before President, therefore, paragraphs Nos. 7, 8 and 9 are expunged from order dated 22-3-2011. These paragraphs shall be replaced by following Paragraph:-- "
7. Second set of appeals are dismissed being not pressed by learned counsel for appellant taxpayer." Applications are allowed. CMA/191/Tax(Trib.) Application allowed.