| Case ID |
22416791-be2e-4266-8aba-dc60d7b760d4 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
I.T.As. Nos. 155/KB to 158/KB of 1998-99 |
| Decision Date |
Mar 01, 1999 |
| Hearing Date |
Feb 20, 1999 |
| Decision |
The Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue decided that the Inspecting Additional Commissioner's power to revise the Deputy Commissioner's order under the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 is limited by the provisions of section 66-A(2). The tribunal held that the limitation period should be counted from the date of the original order and not from the revised order. The tribunal found that the interest credited to the suspense account was not previously assessed and, therefore, the assessment under section 66-A was time-barred. Consequently, the tribunal canceled the assessment completed under section 66-A for the assessment years 1991-92, 1992-93, 1993-94, and 1994-95. |
| Summary |
This case revolves around the interpretation of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, particularly sections 66A(2), 62, and 132. The main issue was whether the Inspecting Additional Commissioner's revision of the Deputy Commissioner's order was time-barred. The tribunal emphasized that the limitation for invoking section 66-A should be based on the original order's date rather than the revised order. The case also highlighted the complexities surrounding the taxation of accrued interest, particularly regarding how such interests are treated in the context of financial regulations. The tribunal's decision underscores the critical importance of adhering to statutory timelines in tax assessments, which is a significant consideration for tax professionals and accountants. The ruling serves as a reminder of the need for meticulous record-keeping and compliance with tax laws, as well as the potential consequences of failing to do so. Keywords such as 'income tax', 'tax assessment', 'accrued interest', 'financial regulations', and 'tax compliance' are relevant for SEO optimization. |
| Court |
Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
SHAHID JAMAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER,
TAHSEEN AHMED BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER
|
| Lawyers |
Ikramul Haq,
Jawaid Farooqi,
Anisul Hasnain, D.R.
|
| Petitioners |
Not available
|
| Respondents |
Not available
|
| Citations |
1999 SLD 326,
1999 PTD 2294,
(1999) 79 TAX 273
|
| Other Citations |
1998 PTD (Trib.) 1878,
1996 PTD (Trib.) 492,
1999 PTD (Trib.) 401,
CIT v. Fazalur Rehman and Saeedur Rehman 1964 SSC 176,
CIT v. Thiagaraja Chetty (KR MIT) & Co. (1993) 24 ITR 525, 530 (SC),
National Bank of Pakistan v. I.A.C. I.T.As. Nos.1983, 1984, 1985/KB of 1997-98,
1994 PTD (Trib.) 1051,
1995 PTD (Trib.) 807,
Messrs Efahi Cotton Mills Limited v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1997 SC 582 = 1997 PTD 1555,
CIT v. Motor Credit Company (Pvt.) Limited (1981) 127 ITR 572 (Mad.),
CIT v. Smt. Vimla D. Sonwane (1994) 73 Taxman 596 (Punj. & Har.),
PIA Corporation v. CIT (Central), Karachi 1998 SCMR 872 = 1998 SCC 658,
State Bank of Travancore v. CIT (1986) 158 ITR 102,
PLD 1997 SC 315
|
| Laws Involved |
Income Tax Ordinance, 1979
|
| Sections |
66A(2),
62,
132,
12(3)
|