Case ID |
1aa20691-6bc4-45d1-93f9-5c37cb7aa372 |
Body |
View case body. Login to View |
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
|