IRFAN ULLAH, IRFAN TRADERS vs The COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, UNIT-41, RANGE-1, (D

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

IRFAN ULLAH, IRFAN TRADERS VS The COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, UNIT-41, RANGE-1, (D.I. KHAN ZONE), RTO, PESHAWAR Ss.39(3), 111, 122(5), 122(9) & 176(1)---Income from other sources---amount received as a loan/ advance from another person (not being a banking company)---Liability, declaring of---"Receivables"---Scope----Definite information---Receipt of the loan through banking channel, proof of---assessing Officer issued notice under S. 176(1) of the Ordinance, 2001 to the taxpayer requiring him to provide proof of receipt of the loan through banking channel---Taxpayer, through reply, explained / clarified that the declared liability was not a loan acquired but a liability owed to brothers as result of the family settlement about the distribution of inherited property---Taxpayer filed appeal before the appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue against amended assessment order---Validity---Record transpired that Department found the reply submitted by the appellant /taxpayer unsatisfactory, which was made the basis of issuance of notice under S. 122(9) show-causing the appellant / taxpayer about the intended addition of the declared liability in case the appellant /taxpayer failed to prove receipt of the liability through banking channel as required under S. 39(3) of the Ordinance, 2001---When the appellant / taxpayer informed the assessing Officer through his reply to notice under S. 176 that the said liability was in fact a liability having arisen as a result of family settlement about distribution of inherited property among brothers, it would have been in the fitness of things to subject this claim of the appellant taxpayer through verification by conducing audit under S. 177 in the case which, however, was not done and the assessing Officer then proceeded under S.122 read with S. 39(3) before further verifying or rebutting the claim of the appellant / taxpayer---Thus, no definite information had come into possession of the assessing Officer within the meaning of S.122(5) after the reply of the appellant/ taxpayer to the notice under S. 176 in the case and, therefore, the notice under S.122(9) was not in accordance with the law about what constitutes "definite information"---Thus, said aspect negated the finding and treatment of the assessing Officer---appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue set-aside impugned order finding that the assessing Officer had no definite Information within the meaning of S. 122(5) read with S. 39(3) and the notice under S. 122(9) and amendment order under Ss.122/39(3)/111 were without any lawful jurisdiction and cause---appeal, filed by taxpayer, was allowed, in circumstances.

IRFAN ULLAH, IRFAN TRADERS vs The COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, UNIT-41, RANGE-1, (D — 2025 PTD 380 INLAND REVENUE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL OF PAKISTAN

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 PTD