Find a Lawyer

I.T.A. NO.5169/LB OF 2004, DECIDED ON 22ND SEPTEMBER, 2005. versus I.T.A. NO.5169/LB OF 2004, DECIDED ON 22ND SEPTEMBER, 2005.

Sections 13 (1) (AA) (D), 62 and 132 unplanned investments, etc., the considered income edition ADCs are of the view that the Assessing Officer, Sections 13 (1) (A) and 13 (1) (D) Failed to issue a notice under At the time of re-evaluation under Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, section 62/132 of Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, no analysis can be allowed in respect of the increase. The Department requested that the SC / Appellant in this case. Was already contested. The additions made under Sections 13 (1) (AA) and 13 (1) (D) of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979 were then finalized and the original assessment under section 62 of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979 was finalized. The idea of this was very familiar. The facts and circumstances lead to such an increase. The Justification Officer failed to formally contest the Assessment; the earlier clash on the matter at the time of the original order fulfilled the legal requirement of the Assessing Officer. Was not exempt from doing so. Before proceeding with the proposed increase under section 62/132 of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979, regular confrontation was in process and under section 62 of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979, the earlier proceedings could not be carried forward. The fact that under Section 13 (1) (AA) and 13 (1) (D) of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979, before the resumption of the increase in total income, it is obligatory to raise a new front by regularly inspecting the Additional Commissioner. Approval was taken. It was fatal to estimate its outcome and failure, with the proposed increase by the officer evaluating it. famous lower court advocate from Allahabad lawyer