Income Tax Appellate Tribunal
2006
THLN 1027
2006 PTD 2722 | (2006) 93 TAX 374
Laws Cited
Income Tax Ordinance, 1979
Sections
52,86

VS

Petitioner(s) by: Sabiha Mujahid, D.R. for Appellant (in I.T.As. Nos. 3264/LB and 3265/LB of 2004). Saleem Abid, ITP for Appellant (in I.T.As. Nos. 3392/LB and 3393/LB of 2004).
Respondent(s) by: Saleem Abid, ITP for Respondent (in I.T.As. Nos. 3264/LB and 3265/LB of 2004). Sabiha Mujahid, D.R. for Respondent (in I.T.As. Nos. 3392/LB and 3393/LB of 2004)
Present:
ORDER

The consolidated impugned order of the learned CIT(A), dated 5-5-2004 for the assessment years 1996-97 to 1999-2000 has been objected for the two years i.e. 1996-97 and 1997-98 by the Department on the ground that there was no justification to cancel the assessment made under section 52 of the repealed Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 being hit by limitation, while for the remaining two years i.e. 1998-99 and 1999-2000, the assessee has objected the confirmation of the order made under section 52 of the repealed Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.We have heard the learned representatives from both the sides and have also perused the consolidated impugned order of the learned CIT(A) and the assessment order.We have found that the learned CIT(A) has cancelled the orders passed under section 52, as show-cause notice for these two years were after more than period of four years. The learned CIT(A) in this respect has placed reliance on the decision of this Tribunal reported as (2003) 87 Tax 89 (Trib.) w...

2006 THLN 1027
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal
(2006 PTD 2722 | (2006) 93 TAX 374)

PRESENT:

Petitioner(s) by: Sabiha Mujahid, D.R. for Appellant (in I.T.As. Nos. 3264/LB and 3265/LB of 2004). Saleem Abid, ITP for Appellant (in I.T.As. Nos. 3392/LB and 3393/LB of 2004)..

Respondent(s) by: Saleem Abid, ITP for Respondent (in I.T.As. Nos. 3264/LB and 3265/LB of 2004). Sabiha Mujahid, D.R. for Respondent (in I.T.As. Nos. 3392/LB and 3393/LB of 2004).

Law: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979
Sections: 52,86

Disclaimer / Note: We have reproduced the judgment for facilitation of readers; however, the readers must study the original or certified copy of the above said judgment before referring it in any Court of Law. The judgment as reproduced above is a reported judgment available in law magazines and journals namely: 2006 PTD 2722 | (2006) 93 TAX 374