Find a Lawyer

MICRON LAB THROUGH EX PROPRIETOR versus SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD

Sections 72 (1) and 63 Income Tax Ordinance (XLEX of 2001), Section 1, 2 Establishment of the Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXV of 2000), 2 (3) in the matter of business or profession. The appraiser notified the concerned tax officer to furnish evidence regarding the closure of the business despite issuance of a previous review order through a notice under section 72 (1) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, regarding the closure of the business. Despite the copies of the statements of the landlord and neighbors that were approved. The fact of the closure of the business was verified in the file which can be verified by neighbors and the landlord in which the Complainant / Assisi has rented a room for a Business Tax Officer, Instead of taking evidence, the landlord and the Complainant / Assisi's neighbors relied on the Inspector's unorganized and unconfirmed report after the closure of the business, with the affidavit of the Fourth Report and that of the business. Closing was not only irrational, but also deferred the order passed on the 'Mismanagement to Food Report' The decrease was bound by the Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended that the Secretary Revenue Division, rejecting the advice of the relevant Commissioner shall order under the Income Tax Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, section 122 a. \ r \ n tax advocates from Takhtbai lawyer