RASHID MEHMOOD versus C.I.R. (LEGAL DIVISION) R.T.O., RAWALPINDI
Sections 116 (3), 111 (1) (b), 114 (6) and 122 filing of the revised wealth statement in the statement of wrongdoing The first appellate authority refusing to accept such a statement found that the wealth apparatus Revision of the statement cannot be accepted simply because. The taxpayers reviewed the above statement. That the taxpayer had to justify revising the statement with appropriate documentary evidence and observed that the taxpayer had modified the statement of wealth without proper evidence, only to avoid treatment under section 122 (1). Read with Revenue section 122 (5) for. Tax Ordinance, 2001 Taxpayers claimed that the Assessing Officer had to accept the revised statement because Section 116 (3) of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001 provided that any error in the statement of wealth was amended. Or the contradiction can be removed but their position is rejected. In addition, the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 was made under section 111 (1) (b) of the Department. The Department requested that the taxpayers' version in every way was a consideration and that it would increase and increase its scope. Failed to provide an explanation about. Very limited; modifications can only be made to correct any errors or omissions. And cannot be modified after the department has identified any contradiction that the scope of the error of the error or misrepresentation of the statement was very broad and all covered if a taxpayer filed his / her return. After it turns out that this is not correct and any part of the taxable income was included in the taxable income and was not included or accounts were misrepresented \ including the accounts accounts were filed incorrectly.
