Find a Lawyer

ISLAMUDDIN SHAIKH THROUGH TAHIR LAW ASSOCIATES, SUKKUR versus SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD

Section 2 (3) Income Tax Ordinance (of 1979), Offer am r \ n \ Corruption hearing Hearing / Complainant Opportunity claimed that instead of considering the complainant's request, The Regional Commissioner directed the complainant to refer to the same tax officer against whom he had applied, and that he was not provided any opportunity to be heard, which was the Department of Error. How and when the amount paid was adjusted since all pending reviews when the matter was transferred, the matter was transferred. If the complainant's request was faulty and no further action was required, the Regional Commissioner of Income Tax should have had a hearing and considered their complaints and submissions. The Regional Commissioner, who reviewed the Income Tax, transferred the record rather than making any decision on the complainant's request, instructing him to comply with the legal notice issued by the same officer for whom the complainant had expressed distrust and Neglecting and neglecting the application without allowing the opportunity for a hearing was contrary to the principles of natural justice and propriety and demonstrated inadequacy, and a focus that deserved to be discharged disc not responding to the request to disclose. Granting that the year from which the payment was adjusted also increased the amount paid by tax officials. Negligence, negligence and inability to pay the obligations and obligations, within 15 days of receipt of this order, the taxation officer should intermittently inform the complainant in the years of investigation. how to become a advocate from Sangla Hill lawyer