MUHAMMAD AZAM versus SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD
Section 122 (1) Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), Section 2 (3) Complaint against illegal assessment and re-evaluation of tax flour mills Section 122 (1) of Income Tax Ordinance 2001 The taxation was estimated for the tax year 2008, but a similar assessment was filed before the Commissioner (Appeal) who filed the same tax department with the Appellate Tribunal, which sent the review back. Had given. During the re-evaluation process, the complainant lodged a complaint with the Federal Tax Ombudsman on the basis of the concern that the Department of Taxes was likely to direct the Assessing Officer to review the evidence, including bank statements. That its treatment should be repeated in this diagnosis first as explained. The flour mill ignored his investment sources, and a negative indication was made by the complainant about the source of his investment in flour mills, claiming that such investments were made from a loan account and some non- Received from domestic remittances, which were ignored by the Assigning Officer, and acted on this Demand Notice. Repeating the treatment he had dealt with in the first evaluation, ignoring the appellant's tribunal's complainant's direction, filed a return of income with the tax year 2007, as well as The amended wealth statement was submitted on 30 2007 6 2007 and the revised statement of wealth reconciliation was filed for the revised tax year 2008 as well, records show that the complainant has made it clear Investments related to income tax year 2008 in the Income Year
Related judgments — Federal Tax Ombudsman Pakistan, 2013
