HABIB BANK LTD. versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION
Sections 151, 161, 162 and 174 of the Constitution of Pakistan, Article 199 Constitutional application were banking companies banning tax abatement and were upset with the notice issued by the authorities to prosecute for non-deduction of tax if the Commissioner If the action was taken under section 161 of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001 and the amount to be deducted was related to the deduction of the income of the authority, then any such action was taken beyond the period in which the deduction was made. The issuing authority had to maintain his account books, etc. Section 174 of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001 required the proper justification of the ounce, then the Commissioner would have to explain that if the justification for the proceedings was being granted, the ounce would have been discharged if there was a proper justification and if the law Otherwise, the action could be sustained in law. Proper justification, so onus would not be excluded and the time set aside for action was liable to be set aside for the purposes of section 174 of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001, because so much time was provided Prior to this, the authority / taxpayers were not obliged to maintain the account books. If in the present case the Inland Revenue Department would have been that much in mind. Before the period set out in section 174 of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001, it could have been done earlier and with better question, the authorities did not do so and no proper justification was provided for the delay, The responsibility of the department was not discharged, the actions of the undercover authorities were not stopped.
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2013
