AIRLINK 189.45 Increased By ▲ 1.42 (0.76%)
BOP 11.20 Decreased By ▼ -0.66 (-5.56%)
CNERGY 7.29 Decreased By ▼ -0.25 (-3.32%)
FCCL 36.70 Decreased By ▼ -1.09 (-2.88%)
FFL 15.00 Decreased By ▼ -0.24 (-1.57%)
FLYNG 26.39 Increased By ▲ 0.86 (3.37%)
HUBC 131.45 Increased By ▲ 1.30 (1%)
HUMNL 13.50 Decreased By ▼ -0.11 (-0.81%)
KEL 4.27 Decreased By ▼ -0.08 (-1.84%)
KOSM 6.05 Decreased By ▼ -0.12 (-1.94%)
MLCF 45.99 Increased By ▲ 0.31 (0.68%)
OGDC 202.49 Decreased By ▼ -3.94 (-1.91%)
PACE 6.10 Decreased By ▼ -0.28 (-4.39%)
PAEL 38.18 Decreased By ▼ -2.13 (-5.28%)
PIAHCLA 16.81 Decreased By ▼ -0.14 (-0.83%)
PIBTL 7.91 Decreased By ▼ -0.12 (-1.49%)
POWER 9.85 Decreased By ▼ -0.18 (-1.79%)
PPL 173.84 Decreased By ▼ -5.00 (-2.8%)
PRL 34.94 Decreased By ▼ -1.42 (-3.91%)
PTC 24.10 Decreased By ▼ -0.29 (-1.19%)
SEARL 101.80 Decreased By ▼ -1.36 (-1.32%)
SILK 1.06 Decreased By ▼ -0.01 (-0.93%)
SSGC 32.68 Decreased By ▼ -3.56 (-9.82%)
SYM 17.95 Decreased By ▼ -0.28 (-1.54%)
TELE 8.11 Decreased By ▼ -0.27 (-3.22%)
TPLP 12.02 Decreased By ▼ -0.14 (-1.15%)
TRG 67.44 Increased By ▲ 0.11 (0.16%)
WAVESAPP 11.79 Decreased By ▼ -0.22 (-1.83%)
WTL 1.53 Decreased By ▼ -0.04 (-2.55%)
YOUW 3.95 Increased By ▲ 0.06 (1.54%)
BR100 11,819 Decreased By -87.9 (-0.74%)
BR30 35,000 Decreased By -554.1 (-1.56%)
KSE100 112,085 Decreased By -478.8 (-0.43%)
KSE30 34,946 Decreased By -148 (-0.42%)

ISLAMABAD: The Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue (ATIR) Islamabad has ruled that commissioner does not fall under the definition of “person” according to Section 2(42) read with Section 80 of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001.

Thus, the commissioner cannot file appeal before the ATIR according to Section 131 of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001 amended through Finance Amendment Act 2024.

According to the order issued by the ATIR Islamabad, the appeal was filed on May 17, 2024, by the Appellant department under the newly substituted Section 131 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 (Ordinance).

Section 122 (2) of ITO: ATIR reconciles apparently conflicting provisions

The appeal challenges the Appellate order dated April 30, 2024, issued by the commissioner Inland Revenue (Appeals-I), LTO, Islamabad, for the Tax Year 2018, based on the grounds outlined in the memorandum of appeal.

The authorized representative raised objections regarding the applicability of Section 131 of the Ordinance, which was amended through the Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 2024. The amended provision introduced the term “person” as defined under Section 2(42), read with Section 80 of the Ordinance. Furthermore, the term “commissioner” is separately defined in Section 2(13) of the Ordinance.

In response, the departmental representative (DR) argued that the second appeal was filed against the CIR(A)’s impugned order dated April 30, 2024, before the implementation of the amendment. The DR asserted that, at the time of filing the appeal on May 17, 2024, the unamended provision of Section 131(1) was applicable, which allowed either the “taxpayer or commissioner” to file an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal.

The question of whether the term “commissioner,” as defined in Section 2(13) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, falls within the scope of “person” as defined in Section 2(42), read with Section 80 of the Ordinance, thereby entitling the commissioner to file an appeal under the newly substituted Section 131 requires careful analysis of the statutory language and intent.

The ATIR order added that the substituted section 131 appears to restrict the right to appeal to the Appellate Tribunal to “any person” as defined under section 2(42), which does not explicitly include the commissioner.

Therefore, under the new section 131, the Commissioner may not have the right to appeal to the ATIR. In light of the foregoing discussion, the department’s appeal is dismissed as not maintainable under the newly substituted/amended Section 131 of the Ordinance, 2001, the ATIR order added.

The revised Section 131 permits only “any person, other than an SOE,” to file an appeal to the ATIR. It does not explicitly include the commissioner within the scope of “person”.

In contrast, the previous version of Section 131 explicitly allowed both the “taxpayer” and the “commissioner” to appeal to the ATIR.

The removal of the term “commissioner” from the revised provision appears deliberate. Likewise, the newly substituted Section 133 of the Ordinance continues to use the terms “aggrieved person” or “commissioner” in relation to filing a reference application before the High Court.

The exclusion of the term “commissioner” from the substituted section suggests that the legislature intended to limit the appeal rights to persons as defined under Section 2(42). If the commissioner were to retain the right to appeal, the language of Section 131 would likely have mirrored the previous version by expressly including the “commissioner”, the order of the ATIR added.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2024

Comments

Comments are closed.