Legal Case Summary

Case Details
Case ID 1aa20691-6bc4-45d1-93f9-5c37cb7aa372
Body View case body.
Case Number I.T.A. No. 414/IB/2015
Decision Date Feb 10, 2020
Hearing Date Feb 10, 2020
Decision The appeal filed by the appellant taxpayer has been accepted, and the order passed by the Commissioner Inland Revenue (Appeals) has been annulled. The tribunal found that the department could not pursue two parallel remedies simultaneously for the same cause of action. The tribunal emphasized the importance of the doctrine of election, concluding that once a remedy is chosen, the litigant cannot seek another for the same issue. The decision reinforces the principle that multiple proceedings for a singular grievance should be avoided to prevent conflicting judgments and unnecessary litigation.
Summary In the case of I.T.A. No. 414/IB/2015, the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue addressed the complexities surrounding the appeal against the Commissioner Inland Revenue's order regarding income tax assessments. The appellant, M. Tariq, contested the adjustments made to his daily sales estimation, which were reduced from Rs. 7,000 to Rs. 6,000 by the CIR(A). The tribunal ruled on the procedural impropriety of the department pursuing both an appeal and a rectification application for the same issue. This decision highlights the importance of the doctrine of election in legal proceedings, which prevents litigants from seeking multiple remedies simultaneously for a single grievance. The ruling emphasizes that once a party opts for a remedy, they cannot pursue another, thereby aiming to reduce litigation and ensure judicial efficiency. The case is significant in tax law and procedural fairness, reinforcing the need for clear legal strategies when addressing tax disputes. It serves as a critical reference for taxpayers and legal practitioners in understanding the boundaries of legal remedies available under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 and the Civil Procedure Code.
Court Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue
Entities Involved Not available
Judges M.M. AKRAM
Lawyers Mr. Muhammad Bilal Uddin Butt, Mr. Zaheer Qureshi
Petitioners M. TARIQ PROP: M/S TARIQ FOOD Q-4, GOL CHOWK, PANI WALI TANCKY, NEW SCHEME MOHANPURA, RAWALPINDI
Respondents THE COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, ZONE-II, RTO, RAWALPINDI
Citations 2020 SLD 1522
Other Citations 2016 PTD 1675, PLD 1997 SC 32
Laws Involved Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Sections 131, 132(10), 133, 174(2), 214C, 221, 11, 12(2), Order IX rule 13