ABDUL RASHEED, PROP. MODERN STEEL HOUSE, LAYYA versus C.I.R., R.T.O., MULTAN
Sections 111 (1) (b), 121, 122 and 120, based on unclear income or asset defect information, were passed on the previous order that three motor vehicles are registered in the name of the taxpayers. In addition, the cars were not verified without ownership, which showed that the department had no definitive information available. One vehicle was purchased by the bank under a rental agreement and the payment was made to pay / declare in the Letter of Authority issued to operate the vehicle and only in the case of rental income installment, while the other vehicle was for revenue. Contrary to the engine number and chassis number announced by the source. Neither taxpayers nor installments were paid under the rental agreement of, and it was not provided a fair opportunity to hear, which was contrary to most Audi Ultimatum parties because it was erred in addition to accuracy because the department had no Exact / accurate information was not available because only one vehicle was from the taxpayer which was also recovered. Under lease agreement from the bank lease and three installments were paid, no such investment could be made. The second vehicle was not due to taxpayers because the department failed to verify ownership and was simultaneously charged. The exact amount, which meant that Section 122 of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001 was deemed to have no conclusive information on the department, such weaknesses proved that the proceedings of the review were completely illegal and by law. This was not guaranteed, otherwise, taxpayers were not allowed appropriate hearing opportunities that would The basics of basic principles of justice
