AIRLINK 154.88 Increased By ▲ 4.63 (3.08%)
BOP 9.96 Decreased By ▼ -0.16 (-1.58%)
CNERGY 7.33 Decreased By ▼ -0.09 (-1.21%)
CPHL 78.24 Increased By ▲ 7.11 (10%)
FCCL 47.53 Increased By ▲ 1.82 (3.98%)
FFL 14.49 Increased By ▲ 0.15 (1.05%)
FLYNG 40.87 Increased By ▲ 3.72 (10.01%)
HUBC 138.71 Increased By ▲ 0.36 (0.26%)
HUMNL 12.93 Increased By ▲ 0.39 (3.11%)
KEL 4.34 Decreased By ▼ -0.22 (-4.82%)
KOSM 5.16 Increased By ▲ 0.17 (3.41%)
MLCF 75.92 Increased By ▲ 6.27 (9%)
OGDC 218.66 Increased By ▲ 15.65 (7.71%)
PACE 5.23 Decreased By ▼ -0.15 (-2.79%)
PAEL 45.30 Increased By ▲ 1.06 (2.4%)
PIAHCLA 14.80 Increased By ▲ 1.35 (10.04%)
PIBTL 8.64 Increased By ▲ 0.02 (0.23%)
POWER 15.13 Increased By ▲ 0.15 (1%)
PPL 168.03 Increased By ▲ 15.28 (10%)
PRL 29.55 Increased By ▲ 2.53 (9.36%)
PTC 20.13 Increased By ▲ 0.84 (4.35%)
SEARL 82.57 Increased By ▲ 7.51 (10.01%)
SSGC 32.79 Increased By ▲ 2.33 (7.65%)
SYM 14.23 Increased By ▲ 0.28 (2.01%)
TELE 6.99 Increased By ▲ 0.08 (1.16%)
TPLP 8.26 Increased By ▲ 0.26 (3.25%)
TRG 63.29 Increased By ▲ 1.39 (2.25%)
WAVESAPP 9.05 Increased By ▲ 0.11 (1.23%)
WTL 1.26 Decreased By ▼ -0.06 (-4.55%)
YOUW 3.61 Decreased By ▼ -0.12 (-3.22%)
BR100 12,644 Increased By 241 (1.94%)
BR30 37,293 Increased By 1733.2 (4.87%)
KSE100 118,576 Increased By 1278.2 (1.09%)
KSE30 36,302 Increased By 462.9 (1.29%)

LAHORE: Tax department has won over a tribunal judgment based on documents not part of reply filed by a taxpayer filed against a show cause notice.

According to details, the taxpayer filed his return for a particular tax year but did not disclose that he had a bank account in a foreign country. Therefore, the department, upon receipt of information regarding such bank account, issued a show cause notice. In reply to the said show cause notice, the taxpayer submitted that the amount in the foreign bank account represents the loan taken abroad which was subsequently paid. However, he failed to produce any documentary evidence of such loan transaction.

The assessing officer found the reply unsatisfactory and issued another notice requiring the taxpayer to submit relevant record, which he failed to submit the same. Consequently, he was charged to tax. An appeal filed by the taxpayer was dismissed, as the said documentary evidence of the loan was not even produced before the Commissioner Appeals.

The taxpayer approached to the tribunal, which allowed his appeal because the taxpayer for the very first time produced the documents before it.

Upon this development, the department approached to the higher fora , which accepted the reference on the ground that the tribunal had based its judgment on documents which were not part of the reply filed by the taxpayer in response to the show cause notice. Such a course was impermissible to the tribunal which should not have accepted the documents produced before it and to proceed to upset the findings of the forum below.

This would tantamount to set up a new case before the tribunal and if these documents were available to the taxpayer, they would ought to have been produced in response to the show cause notice. Therefore, the tribunal went wrong in allowing the appeal filed by the taxpayer.

The taxpayer pursued the case up to the level of the highest appellate forum but to no avail, as he could not establish a question of law for determination in his favour, which was based on a factual dispute.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2025

Comments

Comments are closed.

OSZAR »