Find a Lawyer

MUNIR BROTHERS, LAHORE versus SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD

Sections 59 (1), 66A, 100 and 156 of the Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001), Sections 170 and 239 of the Office of the Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (2000X of XXV), Sections 2 (3), 9 and 11 of the post. Return non-issuance was to be filed by the authority to return the tribunal's order through a tribunal cause for a refund, even after the order was vacated under section 66A of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979, The reason was wrong because the law never provided for the automatic return of compensation. The lodge of the order of litigation under section 156 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, was made on 23rd 2001, while the order under section 59 (1) was canceled on 12.10 2001, thus the complaint was made during that period. Refunds can be issued to the provider. The complainant was justified that in the end the department did not take proper account of the deposits in the relevant records. The Authority had deliberately made a mistake in determining the refund in the original order, then deliberately made its commitment. Even after holding the order and withholding the refund without restraining reason for any reasonable reason, the Tribunal made such refund, following the leave of order under section 66A of the Ordinance. There was absolutely no justification for stopping, so there was no fresh request for a return to corruption. In such a case, section 239 was required to be covered under section 170 of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001, in which case the authority was lied to show the absence of corruption The Federal Tax Ombudsman gave such a refund to the Revenue. Recommended issuance and payment of compensation, if any best advocate from Hala lawyer