7/25/23, 3:01 PM Case Detail
2021 SLD 30 Equiv. Citation: 2021 PTD 47 = = =
INLAND REVENUE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
I.T.A. No. 52/PB of 2019, decided on 22nd May, 2019, Date of hearing: 30th
April, 2019
PRESENT:
SHAHID MASOOD MANZAR, CHAIRMAN
NADIR MUMTAZ WARRAICH ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
PETITIONER(S): MESSRS SEFAM (PVT.) LTD, LAHORE
VS
RESPONDENT(S): THE COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, RTO, PESHAWAR
Petitioner(s) by: Munir Ahmed, CFO
Respondents by: Ms. Fozia Iqbal, DR
ORDER
SHAHID MASOOD MANZAR, CHAIRMAN:---.---
This appeal has been filed against the impugned Order No..1220 dated 10.12.2018 passed
by the learned Commissioner Inland Revenue (Appeals), RTO, Peshawar whereby he
dismissed appeal with following observation: -
"Notices for hearing were issued multiple times on the address listed in AR's appeal memo,
but none attended in any of the hearings nor any application for adjournment was
received. The grounds of appeal and impugned order were then carefully examined, but no
concrete or compelling argument was found therein. Similarly, no supporting documents
were available in appeal memo. Even otherwise, the treatment meted out to appellant by
the assessing officer is quite reasonable and calls for no interference."
2. The appellant has now contended on the following grounds:-
"..2. That the order of learned Commissioner Inland Revenue (Appeals) is liable to be
canceled as order was passed without granting opportunity of being heard to the appellant.
The Commissioner Inland Revenue (Appeals) is not justified to say that 'notices for hearing
were issued multiple times on the address registered in the AR's appeal memo". Only one
notice was received for hearing on 21-11-2018 that was a gazetted holiday due to Eid
Millad Un Nabi therefore exparty order is not maintainable hence liable to be cancelled.
3. That order is also liable to be cancelled as the same has been passed without
jurisdiction.
4. That proceedings under section 161/205 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 have
wrongly been initiated and has wrongly been confirmed by the Commissioner Inland
Revenue (Appeals) hence orders of the authorities below are liable to be cancelled.
5. That order passed under section 161 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 is also liable to
be cancelled as the reply filed as not been considered by the taxation officer.
6. That demand of tax under section 161 of Income Tax Ordinance. 2001 on account of
payment of rent to the owner of the immovable property /building amounting to Rs.
102,600/- has wrongly been created and has wrongly been confirmed by the
Commissioner Inland Revenue (Appeals) which is liable to be deleted.
7. That order is also liable to be cancelled as the same will tantamount to double taxation
as once the tax has been deducted/deposited by the withholding agent i.e. M/s. Sefam
(Private) Limited and tax has wrongly been charged twicely by the Taxation officer.
https://www.sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=135671 1/2
7/25/23, 3:01 PM Case Detail
8. That the "Bareeza Home Expression" is brand name of the company namely M/s. Sefam
(Pvt) Limited which is an existing taxpayer being assessed vide S/TN H 1537192-1 in
Large Taxpayers Unit. Lahore. Therefore, consequential order passed against the "Bareeza
Home Expression" is liable to be cancelled.
9. That order passed under sections 161/205 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 is also
liable to be cancelled as "Bareeza Home Expression" is neither separate person nor a
withholding agent.
10. That order is not maintainable and liable to be cancelled as Taxpayer Company M/s.
Sefam (Private) Limited has already deducted/paid the tax on account of payment of rent
of immovable property.
11. That order is also liable to be cancelled as the taxation officer was not justified to hold
the "Bareeza Home Expression" "Being private education institute".
3. On the other hand, learned DR vehemently opposed the contents of appeal by
supporting the impugned orders of the authorities below.
4. We have heard both the parties and perused the impugned orders of the authorities
below. The appellant mainly contends that he did not receive multiple notices as alleged in
the impugned order of learned CIR(A), however, received only one notice for hearing on
22.11.2018, but unfortunately that was a gazette holiday i.e. Eid Meelad un Nabi (Salalah-
o-Alal-i-Wa-Aalihi-Wassalam), therefore, has been condemned unheard which is against
the principle of natural justice. It is an established principle of law that nobody can be
condemned unheard and no act or action which is detrimental against the right and
interest of a person/persons can be passed without giving him prior notice and opportunity
of hearing. The record of the case further transpires that the respondents have not treated
the taxpayer fairly and justly because the learned CIR(A) while passing a non-speaking
order in a casual manner himself admits that the taxpayer has not attended the hearing
and nor submitted any supporting documents. We are of the view that taxpayer's plea
carries weight. We hold that even issuance of a proper show-cause notice to a person is an
essential ingredient of the legal maxim "audi alterm partem". The right of being issued
with a show cause notice and the right of being personally heard are inseparable and
inalienable rights of the taxpayer and cannot be denied under any circumstances.
Resultantly, the impugned orders are vacated and the case is remanded back to the
Assessing Officer for providing proper opportunity of hearing to the taxpayer and then pass
afresh order in accordance with law. The taxpayer is also directed to present his case along
with documentary evidence before the Assessing Officer and avoid from unnecessary
adjournments.
5. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
https://www.sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=135671 2/2
