AIRLINK 175.55 Decreased By ▼ -2.01 (-1.13%)
BOP 11.01 Decreased By ▼ -0.04 (-0.36%)
CNERGY 8.29 Increased By ▲ 0.12 (1.47%)
FCCL 47.23 Decreased By ▼ -0.09 (-0.19%)
FFL 16.02 Decreased By ▼ -0.10 (-0.62%)
FLYNG 27.31 Decreased By ▼ -0.04 (-0.15%)
HUBC 142.32 Decreased By ▼ -4.59 (-3.12%)
HUMNL 13.30 Decreased By ▼ -0.21 (-1.55%)
KEL 4.44 Decreased By ▼ -0.06 (-1.33%)
KOSM 5.90 Decreased By ▼ -0.01 (-0.17%)
MLCF 61.80 Decreased By ▼ -0.22 (-0.35%)
OGDC 226.77 Decreased By ▼ -7.91 (-3.37%)
PACE 5.77 Decreased By ▼ -0.03 (-0.52%)
PAEL 44.80 Decreased By ▼ -1.61 (-3.47%)
PIAHCLA 17.88 Decreased By ▼ -0.24 (-1.32%)
PIBTL 10.47 Decreased By ▼ -0.10 (-0.95%)
POWER 12.02 Increased By ▲ 0.03 (0.25%)
PPL 185.92 Decreased By ▼ -5.88 (-3.07%)
PRL 37.16 Decreased By ▼ -0.16 (-0.43%)
PTC 24.05 Increased By ▲ 0.85 (3.66%)
SEARL 100.29 Decreased By ▼ -0.60 (-0.59%)
SILK 1.15 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
SSGC 38.51 Decreased By ▼ -1.20 (-3.02%)
SYM 14.75 Decreased By ▼ -0.28 (-1.86%)
TELE 7.73 Decreased By ▼ -0.11 (-1.4%)
TPLP 11.03 Decreased By ▼ -0.08 (-0.72%)
TRG 66.00 Decreased By ▼ -1.29 (-1.92%)
WAVESAPP 10.97 Decreased By ▼ -0.38 (-3.35%)
WTL 1.35 Decreased By ▼ -0.01 (-0.74%)
YOUW 3.78 Increased By ▲ 0.01 (0.27%)
BR100 12,826 Increased By 19.4 (0.15%)
BR30 38,861 Decreased By -842.2 (-2.12%)
KSE100 118,792 Decreased By -146.5 (-0.12%)
KSE30 36,779 Increased By 22.6 (0.06%)

LAHORE: A taxpayer company has challenged unwarranted recovery of advance tax by the tax department, saying that the department did not have power to reject the advance tax estimates for the March 2024 Quarter.

The company; therefore, challenged the unwarranted recovery of advance tax by the department under Section 147 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 through a recovery notice issued under Section 138 of the Ordinance.

The department had called upon the company to pay its liability as advance tax liability. The company had paid the amount as advance tax on the basis of its estimates.

The department re-calculated the liability for the stated period on the basis of amended assessment under Section 122(5A) of the ITO and issued a revised notice with an increased tax demand of the advance tax liability. It was followed by issuance of recovery notice.

The company challenged the recovery notice on the ground that the department did not have any jurisdiction to question the veracity of the estimate for the tax period in question. However, if the department Respondent did not agree with the figure paid as advance tax for the period assessed vide the estimates by the taxpayer, the department had an option to impose default surcharge at the stage once the returns had been furnished.

However, the department maintained that the taxpayer’s case was of no estimation of advance tax. It is rather an estimation which is on the lower side or erroneous.

The relevant appellate forum held the law has allowed taxpayers to file an estimate of their advance tax payable and pay the amount they believe was due. However, the law did not grant taxation authorities the authority to recover the amount due under section 147. Instead, the ITO relied on taxpayer’s self-assessment, and taxation authorities could reassess tax returns in compliance with the ITO and seek recovery of non-payment or short payment of advance tax u/s 147 based on this reassessment. It set aside the recovery notice and maintained the department can re-determine the advance tax owed by the company after filing returns and if the determined amount exceeds the already paid amount, a default surcharge may be imposed.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2024

Comments

Comments are closed.