PETER C/o Messrs PETER & CO. vs COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, RTO, ISLAMABAD Ss

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

PETER C/o Messrs PETER & CO. VS COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, RTO, ISLAMABAD Ss.172(3)(a), 172(3)(b), 172(3)(c), 172(3)(d), 172(3)(e), 172(3)(f) & 223---Non-resident person---Authorized / statutory representative of taxpayer, role of---Scope---A non-resident company conducted business through a branch office in Pakistan , which had been represented by a Chartered Accountants Firm, however, later non-resident company closed its business---Chartered Accountants (Appellant) assailed orders passed by the Tax Authorities (the Commissioner Inland Revenue and the Assistant Commissioner Inland Revenue) treating them (Appellant) as a representative of said non-resident Company under S.172(3)(f) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 ('the Ordinance 2001')---Held, that the Assistant Commissioner's rational for declaring the appellant as statutory representative under S.172(3)(f) of the Ordinance, 2001, was legally flawed---The Assistant Commissioner relied on the fact that the appellant had previously acted as the authorized representative in the tax reference filed by the Commissioner Income Tax on 05.04.1997 and continued in this capacity up to the Appellate Tribunal level---Appellant served as an authorized representative in past which did not inherently validate their appointment as a representative under S. 172(3)(f) of the Ordinance, 2001---The role of an authorized representative under S.223 of the Ordinance, 2001 differs fundamentally from a statutory representative under S.172(3)(f), with the latter carrying specific fiduciary obligations and financial responsibilities, which fact, the Assistant Commissioner failed to comprehend---It is important to note that an authorized representative does not bear the same level of responsibility or vicarious liability as a representative---Therefore, the Tax Authorities cannot automatically appoint an authorized representative as a representative without establishing the required significant financial connection between the appellant and non-resident person, thus, such declaration lacked justification---Thus, status of Appellant did not automatically qualify them for appointment as a representative under S.172(3)(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, but the same required a distinct fiduciary relationship and financial connection with the non-resident company---Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue annulled the orders passed by the Tax Authorities---Appeal was allowed, in circumstances.

PETER C/o Messrs PETER & CO. vs COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, RTO, ISLAMABAD Ss — 2025 PTD 1904 INLAND REVENUE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL OF PAKISTAN

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 PTD