| Case ID |
3779922c-82f8-4119-9aad-1d9dca2eb839 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
I.T.A. No. 5077/LB of 2001 |
| Decision Date |
May 10, 2001 |
| Hearing Date |
May 10, 2002 |
| Decision |
The Appellate Tribunal rejected the departmental appeal, affirming that any order passed without lawful jurisdiction is a nullity. It held that the selection of the assessee's case through parametric balloting was declared illegal by the High Court, and thus, the Assessing Officer's order was invalid. The Tribunal emphasized that even if the assessee had consented to an assessment, it did not confer jurisdiction to the Assessing Officer to make an illegal assessment. The ruling reiterated that proceedings conducted without lawful authority cannot stand, and appeals against such orders can be instituted at any time. |
| Summary |
This case revolves around the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, particularly focusing on the jurisdiction of tax authorities to pass orders. The Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue addressed issues of legality concerning the selection of cases for audit through computer balloting. The Tribunal ruled that orders passed in excess of jurisdiction lack finality and must be disregarded. The case illustrates the importance of lawful authority in tax proceedings and the implications of unlawful assessments. The decision reinforces that tax assessments must comply with established regulations, and any deviation can render the assessment invalid. The keywords 'Income Tax Ordinance', 'jurisdiction', 'audit selection', and 'tax assessment' are essential to understand the legal framework and implications discussed in this case. |
| Court |
Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
Rasheed Ahmad Sheikh
|
| Lawyers |
Javed Sheryar, DCIT,
Kh. Riaz Hussain
|
| Petitioners |
Not available
|
| Respondents |
Not available
|
| Citations |
2004 SLD 167,
2004 PTD 838
|
| Other Citations |
2001 PTD 3121
|
| Laws Involved |
Income Tax Ordinance, 1979
|
| Sections |
59(1),
55
|