| Case ID |
e0ce9f0e-7831-4d21-b166-5d17129bd258 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
I.T.As. Nos. 3463/LB to 3467/LB of 2019 |
| Decision Date |
Nov 27, 2019 |
| Hearing Date |
Oct 29, 2019 |
| Decision |
The Appellate Tribunal ruled in favor of the taxpayer, stating that the rectification proceedings initiated by the assessing authority under section 221 of the Income Tax Ordinance were barred by time limitation. The Tribunal emphasized that the proceedings to rectify the deemed assessment order for the tax year 2013 were initiated after the five-year limitation period, thus rendering the assessment invalid. Furthermore, the Tribunal highlighted that the mistakes being rectified were debatable and did not meet the criteria for rectification under section 221, which is limited to errors that are apparent from the record without requiring extensive reasoning. Consequently, the orders passed by both the assessing authority and the Commissioner (Appeals) were vacated, and the taxpayer's appeals were upheld. |
| Summary |
In the case I.T.As. Nos. 3463/LB to 3467/LB of 2019, the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue addressed significant issues regarding the rectification of tax assessments under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. The taxpayer, engaged in the pharmaceutical distribution business, challenged the amendments made to their tax assessments for the years 2013 to 2017. The Tribunal found that the assessing authority's attempt to rectify the deemed assessments was not only time-barred but also based on debatable issues that fell outside the scope of rectification provisions. The Tribunal reiterated the importance of adhering to statutory limitations and the necessity of having definite information before amending assessments. This case underscores the critical balance between tax compliance and the rights of taxpayers, particularly in the context of procedural fairness and adherence to legal standards. Key trends in tax law, including the rigid application of limitation periods and the definition of rectifiable errors, are pivotal in determining the outcomes of tax disputes. |
| Court |
Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
SHAHID MASOOD MANZAR,
DR. MUHAMMAD NAEEM
|
| Lawyers |
Suhail Mutee Babri,
Talat Mahmood
|
| Petitioners |
MUHAMMAD HANIF
|
| Respondents |
THE CIR, RTO, LAHORE
|
| Citations |
2020 SLD 624,
2020 PTD 698
|
| Other Citations |
2016 PTD 2579,
1992 PTD 570,
Commissioner of Income Tax v. Abdul Ghani 2007 PTD 967,
Commissioner of Income Tax, Karachi v. Shadman Cotton Mills Ltd., 2008 PTD 253,
2013 PTD 508,
2017 PTD 903,
2016 PTD 270,
2017 PTD 547,
2014 PTD 484,
2017 PTD 1785,
2018 PTD 1480,
1993 SCMR 1108,
PLD 1997 SC 700,
Commissioner of Income Tax v. National Food Lab. 1992 SCMR 687
|
| Laws Involved |
Income Tax Ordinance, 2001
|
| Sections |
153(1)(a),
115(4),
120(1),
122,
221,
221(4)
|