PTD 2012

2012 PLP (Trib (PTD)

C.I.R., ZONE-II, R.T.O., GUJRANWALA Versus QAMAR JAVED, PROPRIETOR, GUJRANWALA

Jurisdiction / Court
Inland Revenue Appellate Tribunal of Pakistan
Decided Date
I.T.A. No.878/LB of 2011, decided on 8th October, 2011.
Honorable Judges
Ch. Muhammad Asghar Paswal, Judicial Member
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2012 PLP (Trib (PTD)
Forum / Court Inland Revenue Appellate Tribunal of Pakistan
Bench Members Ch. Muhammad Asghar Paswal, Judicial Member
Parties C.I.R., ZONE-II, R.T.O., GUJRANWALA Versus QAMAR JAVED, PROPRIETOR, GUJRANWALA
Primary Law Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2012 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 2012 PLP (Trib (PTD)?

The case was heard and decided by the Inland Revenue Appellate Tribunal of Pakistan bench comprising: Ch. Muhammad Asghar Paswal, Judicial Member.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 2012 PLP (Trib (PTD) (C.I.R., ZONE-II, R.T.O., GUJRANWALA Versus QAMAR JAVED, PROPRIETOR, GUJRANWALA). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)

Representation

  • Naeem Hassan, D.R. for Appellant.
  • Shoaib Ahmad Sheikh for Respondent.
  • Date of hearing: 27th September, 2011.

Headnotes / Summary

Ss.111 (1) (b), 122 & 128

Unexplained income or assets

Proper service of statutory notices

Revenue contended that First Appellate Authority was not justified in treating the service of statutory notices under S.218 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 as improper and annul the order passed under S.122(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 merely on technical grounds

Taxpayer contended that notices issued were not properly served and opportunity of being heard was not provided to explain the source of investment; and taxpayer had valid source to explain the investment

Validity

First Appellate Authority had given a categorical finding that the notices issued were not properly served and the assessment had been made without providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the taxpayer

Assessing Officer failed to serve statutory notices in accordance with law

First Appellate Authority was justified to cancel the assessment made under S.122(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001

Appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed being devoid of any merit. 2002 PTD 541 rel.

Judgment & Decree

CH. MUHAMMAD ASGHAR PASWAL (JUDICIAL MEMBER).

The titled appeal has been filed by the Revenue against order dated 29-9-2010 passed by the learned CIR(A), Gujranwala relating to the tax year 2009 to agitate the cancellation of assessment.

3. Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the taxpayer had purchased a shop measuring 249/272 at Noorbawa, Gujranwala for a consideration of Rs.650,

000. The DCIR issued notice under section 122 along with notice under section 122(9) read with section 122(5)(ii) and notice under section 111(1)(b) which remained uncomplied with. The DCIR made the addition under section 111(1)(b) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 at Rs.650,000 and assessment was framed at net income of Rs.768,690 for the tax year 2009. The assessee being aggrieved went in appeal before the learned first appellate authority who annulled the assessment.

4. The learned DR contended that the learned CIR(A) was not justified in treating the proper service of statutory notices under section 218 as improper. The learned DR further submitted that the CIR(A) was not justified to annul the order passed under section 122(1) merely on technical grounds as held in judgment of Lahore High Court Lahore cited as 2002 PTD

541. The AR, on the other hand, submitted that notices issued were not properly served and opportunity of being heard was not provided to, explain the source of investment. The AR further submitted that taxpayer had valid source to explain the investment.

5. I have heard both the sides and perused the available record. I find force in the contentions raised by the learned AR. The learned CIR(A) has given a categorical finding that the notices issued were not properly served and the assessment has been made without providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the taxpayer. The DCIR failed to serve statutory notices in accordance with law. In these circumstances the learned CIR(A) was perfectly justified to cancel the assessment made under section 122(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance. The appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed being devoid of any merit. C.M.A./274/Tax(Trib.) Appeal dismissed.