| Case ID |
2ab8d347-1793-4287-b7af-7290d8d5fa7e |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
I.T.As. Nos.6666/LB, 6665/LB of 1992-93, 2009/LB, |
| Decision Date |
Nov 03, 1997 |
| Hearing Date |
Oct 25, 1997 |
| Decision |
The Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue decided on the rejection of the accounts presented by the assessee, based on the past higher gross profit rate. The Tribunal found that the assessee had maintained proper accounts that were duly audited and verified by a chartered accountant. It ruled that the higher gross profit rate from previous years could not be the sole basis for rejecting the current accounts as no specific defects were pointed out. The decision emphasized that the department's rejection of accounts needed sound reasoning and could not be based solely on historical data. The Tribunal concluded that the income tax assessments made were unjustified, and consequently, the declared results in light of the audited reports should be accepted. |
| Summary |
The case revolves around the income tax assessments of AYESHA WOOLLEN MILLS LIMITED, which were challenged based on the rejection of their accounts by the tax authorities. The Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue scrutinized the arguments regarding the higher gross profit rates from previous years and the validity of the accounts maintained by the company. The Tribunal found that the accounts were properly audited and that no significant discrepancies were presented by the tax department to justify the rejection. The decision underscored the importance of adhering to proper accounting principles and the need for substantial evidence when disputing the validity of a company's financial statements. The case highlights the critical balance between tax assessments and the rights of the taxpayers to maintain their financial integrity. Keywords: Income Tax Ordinance, gross profit rate, tax assessments, audited accounts, financial integrity. |
| Court |
Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue
|
| Entities Involved |
AYESHA WOOLLEN MILLS LIMITED
|
| Judges |
NAZEER AHMAD SALEEMI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER,
NASIM SIKANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
|
| Lawyers |
Mian Ashiq Hussain,
Fiza Muzaffar, D.R.,
Shafqat Mehmood Chohan, L.A.,
Malik Ain-ul-Haq, Advocate Supreme Court,
Nemo for the State
|
| Petitioners |
Mian Ashiq Hussain
|
| Respondents |
Fiza Muzaffar,
Shafqat Mehmood Chohan
|
| Citations |
1998 SLD 107 = 1998 PTCL 19 = 1998 PTD 860
|
| Other Citations |
1992 PTD 736,
1984 PTD 355,
PLD 1992 Supreme Court 562,
994 PTD 174,
1994 PTD 123,
1984 PTD 276
|
| Laws Involved |
Income Tax Ordinance, 1979
|
| Sections |
32(3),
32A
|