Find a Lawyer

HABIBULLAH MULLAH versus SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION

Income Tax Ordinance 1979 Sections 65, 63 and 13 (1) (A) constitute the Office of the Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (2000 of XXV), for the non-service of section 9 notice and the failure to maintain records properly. The notes were reviewed or not properly presented. Or was served on irresponsible and unauthorized additions under Section 13 (1) (a) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, which was not inspected with the prior approval of the Additional Commissioner and therefore The Assessing Officer had further added. ; The officer conducting the case of an unqualified and unlawful appraiser, who had jurisdiction over the matter, had affirmatively admitted that under section 65/63 of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979, the complaint to the Assessment Order, Demand Notice and IT30. Was not presented to the reviewer / reviewer and, therefore, the complainant's mistake and inconvenience led to the inevitable conclusion that the records were not properly maintained, under section 65 of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979 From the issuance of the notice to the final decision of 1979, there was ample evidence of these errors. Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 Testing under section 65/63 of the Federal Tax Ombudsman recommends that the Commissioner of Income Tax, who has obtained powers under Section 138 of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979, review 1998 Should cancel the order that was encountered. A fresh assessment for the year from patent illegal and misconduct should be fully finalized after providing the complainant with a reasonable opportunity to explain their case. famous high court advocate from FR Kohat lawyer