SARWARY BEGUM versus SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD
Income Tax Ordinance 1979 Sections 92 and 12 (18) Establishment of the Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXV 2000 of 2000), Sections 2 (3) and 9 Taxes from a Diagnostic Complainant / Assessee The department has accused the department of indecency. Refusing to receive any notice to initiate and reconsider his salary, by taking action under section 92 of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979 and alleging that the record signatures are all fake / fraudulent. Although it can be easily noted. Because their residence was only a few yards away from the accuracy of the Income Tax Office, the record inspection revealed several shortcomings, according to Section 2 (3) of the establishment of the Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance 2000 office. went under the definition of the. The original diagnosis based on 30 1996 1996 was excluded by the AAC for de novo treatment on 29 6 1999, more than six months after the previous particle re-diagnosis (ie 25 1 2000); re-examination. The order was issued on the complainant on 26 3 2001, which is after 14 months and no respectable reason can be presented for this long delay. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner set aside the assessment dated 30 1996, with clear direction to consider the application of section 12 (18) of the Income / Fax Ordinance 1979, which was on the law book for the relevant assessment year and also Was directed to investigate. Out of a loan of Rs 150,000, Rs 50,000 was refunded and the actual figure of the loan was calculated at the end of the estimated year under reference. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax made no attempt to consider these points and to repeat the original.
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
