Find a Lawyer

MESSRS CITY HEART PLAZA versus SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD.

Establishment of Office of Income Tax Ordinance 1979 Sections 13 (1) (AA), 62, 134 (3), 138 and 156 Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (2000 Census 2000), AOP over violation of Section 9 Done in the hands of members of the Regarding the direction of the first appellate authority and the Tribunal's order and it was clearly stated that the Department had not received the Tribunal order, when it was in fact obtained through the Receipt and Dispatch Register, which is confirmed to be correct. The Commissioner welcomed the tribunal and, despite openly violating the law, the Assessing Officer passed an order under section 62 in which five members of the AOP department submitted to the Federal Tax Ombudsman Office that the tribunal Was not ordered. The Federal Tax Ombudsman recommends that the Chairman, the Central Board of Revenue, be ordered to investigate the person under the Performance and Disciplinary Rules 1973. Anbal, who passed the order under section 62 without complying with the instructions given by the tribunal. Director General of Inspections (Direct Taxes), Central Board of Revenue, to inquire whether the Commissioner failed to send the tribunal to the relevant constituency at the relevant time, and if it was legally forwarded And received by the Assessing Officer, effective and disciplinary rules against the complaint, other than a copy of the order issued by the handwritten complaint which only aggravated the misunderstanding in the affidavit. Can be prosecuted under section 138 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1973 and the Zonal Commissioner exercises modification powers Moto Moto automatically by the diagnostic officer in the case of AOP members advocate from Bajaur lawyer