| Case ID |
2615629a-a519-4bee-a97d-9261a6d18b5f |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
I.T.A. No.274(IB) of 1994-95 |
| Decision Date |
Jan 30, 1995 |
| Hearing Date |
Jan 11, 1995 |
| Decision |
The appeal was filed by the assessee against the order of the Inspecting Additional Commissioner of Income Tax. The grounds of appeal included that the Deputy Commissioner's order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue's interest, and that the loans in question were genuine and documented. The Assessing Officer had previously accepted the loans despite non-compliance from the creditors for verification. The Inspecting Additional Commissioner deemed the assessment erroneous and prejudicial, leading to a notice under section 66-A. However, the Tribunal found that the Inspecting Additional Commissioner's observations were based on a hypothetical change of opinion and that the assessment could not be reopened merely on that basis. As such, the order of the Assessing Officer was upheld, and the appeal was allowed. |
| Summary |
In this case involving the Income Tax Ordinance of 1979, the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue addressed the appeal regarding the validity of loans accepted by the Assessing Officer. The key issue revolved around whether the loans were genuine and whether the assessment could be reopened based on a change of opinion by a higher authority. The Tribunal highlighted that the Assessing Officer had acted within the bounds of the law, accepting loans that were documented and processed through cross-pay orders. The Tribunal emphasized that the mere change of opinion from the Inspecting Additional Commissioner could not constitute grounds for reopening the assessment. The decision underscores the importance of due process in tax assessments and the need for substantial evidence before altering previously accepted financial transactions. This case serves as a precedent for similar tax disputes, reinforcing the legal principle that assessments should not be revisited solely based on differing opinions among tax authorities. |
| Court |
Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
Tariq Aziz, Accountant Member,
Rasheed Ahmad Sheikh, Accountant Member
|
| Lawyers |
C.A. Habib,
Mobeen Gul Khan,
Khalid Ranjha, Advocate Supreme Court,
Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate on-Record,
Muhammad Ashraf Azeem, Advocate Supreme Court,
Ch. Muhammad Aslam, Advocate on-Record,
S.D. Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court for the State
|
| Petitioners |
Not available
|
| Respondents |
Not available
|
| Citations |
1997 SLD 226 = 1997 PTD 2014
|
| Other Citations |
Not available
|
| Laws Involved |
Income Tax Ordinance, 1979
|
| Sections |
66A,
148
|