1997 PLP 2342 (PTD)
N/A
| Citation | 1997 PLP 2342 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Nasim Sikandar, Judicial Member and Shariq Mahmood, Accountant Member |
| Parties | N/A |
| Primary Law | Income Tax Ordinance IXXXI of 1979) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1997 PLP 2342 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Income Tax Ordinance IXXXI of 1979) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1997 PLP 2342 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Pakistan bench comprising: Nasim Sikandar, Judicial Member and Shariq Mahmood, Accountant Member.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1997 PLP 2342 (PTD) (N/A). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Yousaf Akram for Appellant.
- Qaiser M. Yahya, D.R. for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 26th October, 1995.
Headnotes / Summary
S.24(i), Explanation
Allowances paid to workers-- Addition
Assessee in its return claimed some allowances, paid to workers as wages in accordance with various statutory provisions governing employment of workers
Assessing Officer disallowed such amount and made addition on ground of its being salaries paid to employees of assessee and not to the workers as wages
First Appellate Authority confirmed disallowance
Assessment showed that nominal amount was paid to office staff and large amount was paid to workers as cost of living, additional compensatory allowance and special allowance authorised by Government-- Basis taken by Assessing Officer of disallowance as being total salaries paid to staff and not to workers was not correct
Computation of 50% of allowance as envisaged under S.24, Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 was improper
Addition was ordered to be deleted.
Judgment & Decree
Qaiser M. Yahya, D.R. for Respondent. Date of hearing: 26th October, 1995. In this further appeal for the assessment year 1990-91 an order of U.I.T. (Appeals), Gujranwala dated 8-9-1991 is assailed on the ground that the appellate authority was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs.11,061 earlier made by the assessing officer under section 24(i) of the Ordinance.
2. The assessee is a Private Limited Company and derives income from manufacture and sale of Sugar Mills and cement factories parts etc. For the assessment year 1990-91, as against declared loss at Rs.2,43,115 an assessment was framed at an income of Rs.3,92,
088. In the process the assessing officer disallowed the above amount after finding that allowances claimed to that extent were paid to employees of the assessee and not to the workers. This fact was allegedly verified from the salary register as provided by the assessee. The assessee contended that above amount was paid to the workers as wages in accordance with various statutory provisions governing employment of workers. Learned first appellate, authority confirmed the disallowance after agreeing with the reasons assigned by the assessing officer. Hence this appeal.
3. Parties have been heard. Learned counsel for the assessee contends Tat in the immediate succeeding year viz. assessment year 1991-92 a similar disallowance of Rs.116,418 was deleted by the C.I.T. (Appeals), Gujranwala Through its order recorded on 25-1 1-1992. Also claims that all the allowances respect of which the disallowance scoured were paid to the workers and not to the salaried staff. The contention bears weight. Even a glance at the assessment year reveals that a sum of Rs.29,990 were paid to office staff while a sum of Rs.184,893 was paid to workers. They were also paid a sum of Rs.35,679 as cost of living and an additional compensatory allowance amounting to Rs.43,
026. Another sum of Rs.32,624 was paid as special allowance allegedly authorized by the Government. The assessing officer paid up the salary paid to the staff with the cost of living and compensatory allowance paid to workers by resort to subsection (i) of section 24 of the Ordinance. This was clearly improper. Learned first appellate authority, in absence of the assessee appellant before him confirmed the addition without properly appreciating the facts before it. Since the basis taken by the assessing officer of total salaries paid was not correct, his computation of 50 % of the allowance as envisaged under the aforesaid provision of the Ordinance was improper.
4. The revenue having failed to support the order of the authorities below on this issue, we will allow this appeal and direct that the aforesaid sum added towards income under section 24(i) of the Ordinance shall stand deleted. C.M.S./260/Trib. Appeal accepted.