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---Scope---"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---Before asking the appellant/ taxpayer to provide proof / receipt of the liability through banking channel , the assessing Officer had brought nothing on record to the effect that the said liability was amount of loan actually received during the year and not a liability having arisen as result of family settlement about distribution of inherited property ; when it was so, how could he ask the appellant to prove payment of the receipt through bank when the actual receipt of liability had not been proved by the assessing Officer nor declared by the appellant / taxpayer as such---The fact that the brother of the appellant/taxpayer had not declared the liability as receivable in his return did not prove the stance of the assessing Officer either because the same altogether negated the existence of any liability owned to him, what to talk of receipt of the same through banking channel---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