1997 PLP (Trib (PTD)
N/A
| Citation | 1997 PLP (Trib (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Shariq Mahmood, Accountant Member |
| Parties | N/A |
| Primary Law | (b) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), (a) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1997 PLP (Trib (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), (a) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1997 PLP (Trib (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Pakistan bench comprising: 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 (Trib (PTD) (N/A). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- ----S. 32(3) & 134---Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1981, R, 20(2)-- Appeal---Ex parte proceedings ---Assessee, appellant despite knowledge of date of hearing, was not present to substantiate his grounds of appeal and controvert discrepancies in accounts---Held, presumption would be that revenue was justified in not placing reliance on declared version and rejecting same.
- ----Ss.22, 32(3) & 134---Allowances---Additions and add-backs---Appeal to Appellate Tribunal---Assessing Officer, being dissatisfied, and finding defects and discrepancies in various heads of accounts rejected declared version of assessee and made additions and add-backs---C.I.T.(A) confirmed same to the grievance of appellant ---Assessee despite the acknowledgement of date of hearing, by him did not appear before the Tribunal---Held, as the appellant did not appear to substantiate his grounds and remove discrepancies, order of C.I.T.(A) was upheld and appeal was dismissed.
- Nemo for Appellant.
- Nemo for Respondent
- Date of hearing: 11th February, 1996.
Judgment & Decree
Machine - 12 - Shortage 01 02 03 40 - - The above in comparison to 1989-90 ; 1989-90 Seer Chatank Tolas Lint 12 13 01 Seed 25 01 02 Wastage line Cleaner 01 05 03 Shortage - 12 04 40 - -
14. The shortage had increased from 12 chatank 4 tolas to 1 seer 2 chatank and 3 tolas. The assessee's explanation that the variety of ' Kapas' ginned accounted for higher shortage was not substantiated by an quantitative details or evidence. From operation of the same machinery in the same factory in the second year of business the higher wastage could not be properly accounted for. The assessing officer still accepted the yield of lint but reduced the shortage by 2 chatank and added the different to the cotton seed account whereby addition of Rs.91.997 was arrived at. The objection to this treatment was repeated as per grounds of appeal, we need not repeat our observations and conclusion regarding the treatment but only confirm the addition as the facts and circumstances have not changed. OIL YIELD ACCOUNT:
15. The production results, in comparison to the immediately preceding year reflect the following: 1990-91 1989-90 Seer Chatank Tolas Seer Chatank Tolas Oil cake 4 35 2 34 01 04 Oil 03 13 0 4 02 04 Wastage 01 03 03 01 11 02 shortage 40 - - 40 - -
16. From the above? it was observed that the yield of oil has shown a considerable decrease. Explanation of the assessee was that the expellers had developed a fault and this consumed time with the result the cotton seed was heated resulting in lower yield of cotton seed oil. This explanation was not substantiated by any evidence. Besides, any prudent businessman does not hold on either to 'Kapas or carton seed which is in the danger of hearing but in such eventualities disposes it of in the open market. When the explanation filed was not substantiated the yield of oil enhanced by 5 chatank bringing it to the same level as of the assessee's declared results for 1989-90. Result was an addition of Rs.486.148. On these findings and treatment we find ourselves in concurrence with the action of the authorities below and therefore, uphold this addition SALE OF OIL-CAKE:
17. The declared average male rate was Rs.73.39 per maund. The declared sale rate for the same item in 1989-90 was Rs.70.69 per maund but as the entire sale was unverifiable it was adopted at Rs.72 per maund. This addition in 1989-90 has been upheld. The assessee was required to substantiate the sales which was not done. We uphold his treatment on merits and facts.
18. During this year the assessee also traded in pesticides and showed the following results: Purchase Rs.33,99,463 Sales Rs.34,42,963 G.P. Rs.43,500 G.P. Rate 1.26%
19. On scrutiny of the results it was found that the entire sales were unverifiable as no details had been found. At the same time the declared G.P. rate of 1.26% was ridiculously low. The Assessing Officer ascertained the prevailing rate of profit and ginning allowance for any discount he estimated the turnover at Rs.36,00,000 and subjected it to a G.P. rate of 8%. Before doing so the point of view of the appellant company was also obtained. The plea that the pesticides had been dump by the principal companies was not substantiated and neither could be 'explained satisfactorily as to why a company primarily engaged in the business of cotton ginning, pressing and crushing would hold its capital in a venture which was not alternative. Based on the position of accounts, unverifiability for transactions, we deem the action of the authorities below to be fair and reasonable. The addition stands confirmed. P&L ACCOUNT:
20. The position regarding the disallowances made remains the same as discussed by us under this head for 1989-90. There is nothing, as per grounds of appeal, which would strengthen the assessee's plea that the add excessive and not called for we uphold the action of the authorities backs below.
21. In the light of the foregoing discussion and observations we find no in the issue raised by the appellant company for both the assessment went years action of the authorities below is upheld. Both the appeals are dismissed. M,B.A./268/Trib Appeals dismissed.