MISS JAANA MALIK versus C.I.R. (LEGAL), R.T.O.-II, LAHORE
Sections 111 (1) (b) and 122 (9) of the Unclaimed Income or Assets without any attempt to verify the ownership of the property and without additional investment of the car during the commencement of the additional information validation process. No exact information was available with the department. As is evident from the wealth statement and the lease documents as well as the documents of the ownership of the property presented at the hearing, the lease was leased to the company on 3 lease 2003 and so on. The wealth statement for the tax year was increased by Rs. 4,83,000 in 2003, which is the total amount of the car, indicating that the taxation officer had incomplete information on ownership of any taxpayer. Was not, as is evident from the record of the Housing Authority. In trying to verify ownership, the right amount of investment made it clear that the Department had no final information available. Such weaknesses, as contemplated in Section 122 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, clearly proved that the process of amending the assessment was completely illegal and under section 111 (1) (b) of the Income Tax. Excluding the addition, the warranty orders of the authorities below were canceled. Ordinance, 2001 Taxpayers' appeal was accepted while the Appeal Tribunal rejected the Department's appeal.
