HAMID ZAMAN & SEEMA AZIZ (AOP) versus COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, ZONE-VIII, R.T.O.-II, LAHORE
Amendments to Sections 122 (5A), 21 (L) and 174 (2) of the Assessment were conducted under Section 122 (5A) of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001, with the approval of the withdrawal from the Assessing Officer of the banks and held thereafter The expenses were not incurred by cross-check under section 21 (l) / 174 (2) of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001 and the first appellate authority was recorded that the assimilation officer's observations were completely speculative and recorded. I had no content. To suggest that the costs incurred in the commercial and profit and loss account were without supporting evidence. First, the taxpayers need to prove that the costs received by section 174 (2) of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001 were not affected, without proving that the expenditure was not supported by documentary evidence. Was. That the taxpayer receives all of the expenses incurred in the trading and profit and loss account, received from the voucher or bill taxpayer, which is equivalent to auditing the taxpayers. Under Section 122 (5A) of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001, the Additional Commissioner was not empowered to ask for and book books of account. Section 177 of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001 can only be used to audit the taxpayers' account books when audited and the taxpayers were not required to produce account books or other documentary evidence to prove this. Whereby the expenses claimed were unacceptable under section 174 (2) of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001. The assumption of jurisdiction under Section 122 (5A) of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001 was invalid. In addition, two law districts
