PAK LAW GPT — Pakistan Case Law AI justice scale emblemPAK LAW GPTCase law · Urdu & English

PRIME AGENCIES vs The COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE, ZONE-III, RTO-III, KARACHI Ss — 2022 PTD 524 INLAND REVENUE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL OF PAKISTAN

Case information

Citation
2022 PTD 524 INLAND REVENUE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL OF PAKISTAN
Year
2022
Reporter
PTD
Parties
PRIME AGENCIES vs The COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE, ZONE-III, RTO-III, KARACHI Ss
Subject matter
Criminal
Provisions referred to
S. 111; S. 2; S. 122; S. 177; Income Tax Ordinance

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Judgment text as reported

PRIME AGENCIES VS The COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE, ZONE-III, RTO-III, KARACHI Ss. 122, 111, 2(28a) & 177---amendment of assessment---Unexplained income and assets---Imputable income---audit---"Definite information" non-availability of---Effect---appellant/taxpayer being an exporter paid tax on exports under Final Tax Regime (FTR) and filed wealth statements---Deputy Commissioner Inland Revenue (DCIR) observed that the appellant had claimed higher income in wealth reconciliations than the "imputable income" worked back on the basis of tax on exports---Deputy Commissioner Inland Revenue worked out 'imputable income' based on tax collected under FTR and arrived at impugned additions, treating the same as "income from unexplained sources" assessable under S.111, Income Tax Ordinance, 2001---Deputy Commissioner Inland Revenue directed the appellant to produce books of accounts and documents and on its failure passed the impugned orders---Validity---Expression 'imputable income' as used in S.2(28a), Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, could not have been applied to the whole of the Ordinance---"Definite information" was not available with the DCIR and the very jurisdiction was exercised without first satisfying the pre-requisite of subsection (5) of S.122, Income Tax Ordinance, 2001---alleged 'imputable income' already declared by the taxpayer in the wealth reconciliation statements was not a "definite information"---Commissioner (appeals) had erred in ignoring the fact that the books of accounts could only be produced under S.177 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, whereas appellant's case was not selected for audit---No addition under S.111(1)(b), Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, was warranted as no specific notice was issued in that regard---Impugned orders were annulled and the appeals were allowed.

Other judgments reported in 2022 PTD

Back to the case-law library · Search Pakistani case law in Urdu or English