Find a Lawyer

ABDUR REHMAN HAROON versus SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD

Establishment of the Office of the Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), section 2, 63, & 61 and Federal 62 offices, Section 2 (3) Response and documents filed in response to the notice under Section 61 and 62 of the Examination of the Best Judgment. Finished without proper consideration. An examination of the accuracy of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, revealed that daily entries were not made on the order sheet, but documents received by the office, although entered in the internal register, were not kept on record as the net. In deciding earnings, the data did not disclose its count, nor did it mention the extent of the receipts, nor did it summarize the expenses needed to earn an income so that the revenue estimate was a slipshod. In summary, `` insufficient record was clear for not bringing documents on record '' negligence. lar was clear that recording the day-to-day progress on the order sheet was the key to determining revenue through the rule of thumb in 'illicit behavior'. Without any accounting or work, `` neglected investment '' was disclosed, which was neglected to investigate the investment source authorized by the Assessing Officer in making any kind of assessment and this was not the case for natural justice. Notices were answered for breach of the rules, but the Assessing Officer insisted that no record was available on record and that the complainant / SC was not responsible for the response properly received on the record by the Commissioner or inquiry. Tax is levied by the employee on probation by the employee Yeah patent advocate from Qambar lawyer