ABDUL RASHEED versus SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD
Sections 121, 122A and 122 (5A) have the opportunity to hear the best judgment hearing The complainant claims that the earlier proceedings under section 121 of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001 are against the Act as it has a reasonable opportunity to explain the cases. Was not given. The Assessing Officer posted in the audit zone does not have jurisdiction to amend any agreement. And this information relies on modifying the perceived assessment of investment in two motor vehicles. Exact information as to the accuracy of the previous review was based on incorrect reliance which was clearly malicious information as the complainant did not own either of the motor vehicles leasing only one motor vehicle under a rental agreement with a bank. Was received and the complainant debited his profit and loss account in return for the tax year 2010 along with the expenses of this arrangement. The Vehicles stated by the Department in the Review Order approved under Section 121 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, constituted the taxpayer's property in the tax year 2010, referred to in the judgment of this assessment order. There was no evidence to establish vehicle ownership. Considering the rental agreement as a vehicle purchase, and treating the other's purchase without any documentary basis, the vehicle was misleading, arbitrary and unreasonable and was subject to mismanagement by the Federal Tax Ombudsman of the Income Tax Ordinance Applying section 122A, the Federal Board of Revenue instructed the commissioner to review the assessment order. , 2001 \ r \ n
Related judgments — Federal Tax Ombudsman Pakistan, 2013
