Section 122 (5A) and 115 diagnostic statements were filed under section 115 of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001. Upon checking the accounts, it has been observed that the cost of the announced sale is much higher than the sales announced by the import route. And it was estimated that taxpayers made local purchases through the sale of local shopping goods and should enjoy income, because the notice was issued so that the income of locally purchased goods could be estimated. Loan facilities that have no impact on sales. Even one of the shops had never purchased the goods locally. And that there was nothing in the record to establish misunderstanding and prejudice due to interest income and another notice was issued which asked to present the audited accounts and bank account statement. And there is no answer, revenue was estimated on the basis of estimates, nothing was available in the justification record that could establish the existence of local purchase and local sales and this resulted in taxpayers estimating income. Calling for audited accounts and bank statements for the purposes of amendment under section 122 (5A) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, to the extent of review of the appointing officer, was an act of cancellation through other notices In 2001, the issuing notice of the showcasing notice was issued by the Ising officer seeking an amendment which was illegal. He was a defect because of the combined entity to establish a definitive material error and bias was not present but requires further investigation, there is no information on the record
