BML 5.01 Decreased By ▼ -0.05 (-0.99%)
BOP 13.08 Increased By ▲ 0.08 (0.62%)
CNERGY 7.12 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
CPHL 87.45 Increased By ▲ 1.38 (1.6%)
DCL 14.34 Decreased By ▼ -0.33 (-2.25%)
DGKC 170.76 Increased By ▲ 1.95 (1.16%)
FCCL 46.76 Increased By ▲ 0.59 (1.28%)
FFL 15.82 Decreased By ▼ -0.10 (-0.63%)
GCIL 26.87 Decreased By ▼ -0.39 (-1.43%)
HUBC 144.18 Increased By ▲ 2.27 (1.6%)
KEL 5.07 Decreased By ▼ -0.05 (-0.98%)
KOSM 6.69 Decreased By ▼ -0.20 (-2.9%)
LOTCHEM 20.59 Decreased By ▼ -0.41 (-1.95%)
MLCF 84.73 Increased By ▲ 0.66 (0.79%)
NBP 121.82 Decreased By ▼ -0.56 (-0.46%)
PAEL 43.46 Increased By ▲ 1.28 (3.03%)
PIAHCLA 22.29 Increased By ▲ 0.33 (1.5%)
PIBTL 8.93 Decreased By ▼ -0.06 (-0.67%)
POWER 14.01 Decreased By ▼ -0.08 (-0.57%)
PPL 169.94 Decreased By ▼ -0.01 (-0.01%)
PREMA 43.39 Decreased By ▼ -0.38 (-0.87%)
PRL 33.11 Increased By ▲ 0.24 (0.73%)
PTC 24.26 Decreased By ▼ -0.33 (-1.34%)
SNGP 119.64 Increased By ▲ 0.34 (0.28%)
SSGC 45.55 Increased By ▲ 0.38 (0.84%)
TELE 8.08 Decreased By ▼ -0.09 (-1.1%)
TPLP 10.47 Increased By ▲ 0.14 (1.36%)
TREET 23.97 Decreased By ▼ -0.18 (-0.75%)
TRG 58.05 Decreased By ▼ -0.80 (-1.36%)
WTL 1.52 Decreased By ▼ -0.03 (-1.94%)
BR100 13,631 Increased By 52 (0.38%)
BR30 39,851 Increased By 184.3 (0.46%)
KSE100 134,300 Increased By 517.4 (0.39%)
KSE30 40,814 Increased By 132.5 (0.33%)

LAHORE: A show-cause notice by the tax department has survived the test on the ground that a tribunal cannot base its judgment on documents which were not part of the reply filed in response to the show-cause notice.

As per details, a taxpayer had filed return but didn’t disclose in it that he had a bank account in the UK, as well.

Upon receipt of information regarding such bank account, a show-cause notice was issued to him that he had concealed it and also deposits therein. In reply to the said show-cause notice, the taxpayer submitted that the amount in the UK bank account represents the loan taken in London which was subsequently paid.

However, he failed to produce any documentary evidence of such loan transaction and his reply was found unsatisfactory; therefore, assessing officer issued another notice requiring him to submit relevant record. However, he failed to submit the same. Consequently, he was charged to tax under the relevant section of the Income Tax Ordinance.

His appeal before the Commissioner Appeal was dismissed for not producing the documentary evidence before him. The taxpayer preferred an appeal before the tribunal, where he for the very first time produced the documents. The tribunal allowed his appeal and the department filed a reference against this order.

The department was of the view that the tribunal has based its judgment on documents which were not part of the reply filed in response to the show-cause notice. The higher appellate forum held that the tribunal went wrong in allowing the appeal. It was challenged by the taxpayer at the highest appellate forum, which was dismissed on the ground that no question of law arises for determination, which is based on a factual dispute. It followed by a review before the same forum.

However, the review petition met with a similar fate because the taxpayer failed to establish that he has discovered any new and important matter which after the exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be brought to the notice of the court at the time of passing of the order or judgment.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2025

Comments

200 characters