KINGCRETE ASSOCIATES (PVT.) LTD. vs COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, CTO, LAHORE S

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

KINGCRETE ASSOCIATES (PVT.) LTD. VS COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, CTO, LAHORE S.122(9), first proviso [as inserted through Finance Act, 2021 and as amended in Finance Act, 2022]---Amendment of assessments order, passing of---Timeframe---Extension granted beyond 90 days---Powers of Commissioner Inland Revenue (CIR)---Scope---Time taken through adjournments by the taxpayer---Effect---Summary given in the very impugned order revealed that extension was granted by CIR beyond 90 days (from 12.09.2023 to 15.12.2023 )---The first proviso of S.122(9) clearly stipulates that extended period granted by CIR shall in no case exceed ninety days---The phrase "such extended period shall in no case exceed ninety days " clearly reflects the legislature's force behind it so as to confine the CIR not to extend even a single day beyond ninety days, so, the extension given by the CIR beyond ninety days was patently illegal and unlawful---Moreover, even after excluding the adjournments of 45 days taken by the taxpayer the impugned order was still time barred---Plain language of first proviso to S.122(9) inserted through Finance Act, 2021, as amended in Finance Act, 2022, clearly indicates that the tax officer was bound to pass order within the stipulated time 180 days or within extended time by the CIR which could not exceed ninety days---The intention of legislature by inserting this proviso clearly meant to restrict the officers to pass orders within time so as to curtail the unbridled and unlimited powers of the officers in passing assessment orders whenever they wanted---The curtailing of powers of the officer and CIR and the negative character of language employed in the first proviso pointed towards their mandatory mature---Pertinently, previously there was no time limit and the first proviso in S.122(9) was inserted in Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, by way of amendment through Finance Act, 2021---When the legislature made an amendment in an existing law by providing a specific procedure or time frame for performing a curtain act, such provision could not be interpreted in a way which would render it redundant of nugatory---First proviso to S. 122(9) is mandatory in nature and the non-compliance with its terms would be that any order passed beyond stipulated time period would be invalid---Further, as per second proviso of S. 122(9) time taken through adjournments by the taxpayer not exceeding sixty days shall be excluded from the computation of the period specified in the first proviso---In the present case, the taxpayer took adjournments for 45 days which had been excluded from the above made computation---The assessment order was time barred hence was illegal, void ab-initio and not sustainable under the law---Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue set-aside the impugned order---Appeal, filed by Taxpayer, was allowed, in circumstances.

KINGCRETE ASSOCIATES (PVT.) LTD. vs COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, CTO, LAHORE S — 2026 PTD 179 INLAND REVENUE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL OF PAKISTAN

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 PTD