ARIF IQBAL versus SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD
Sections 122 and 129 (5) (7) constitute the Office of the Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXV of 2000), section 2 (3), 9 and 11, defect / related liability for the relevant tax year The assessment of the capital system has been amended, it has filed an appeal before the CIR (Appeal), and the complainant further contradicts the business of the amended review on the information obtained from the complainant's sales tax record. It has been requested that the CIR (appeal) be requested for a stay order against his application. The amended assessment was rejected by the complainant after the appeal was finalized, after the final decision was made, the complainant filed a complaint against such error, complaining about the invalid business review in the amended assessment. Defendant's confession, the result did not appear Appeal, the complainant's appeal decision on the CIR was not delayed, it was equivalent to corruption Section 2 of the establishment of the Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (3) Recommendations made to the Federal Board of Revenue under 2000, in accordance with the law contained in section 129 (4) of the Income Tax Instructions should be issued to the Commissioner (Appeals) for deciding the alleys. Orders, reporting compliance within 2000 and 30 days \ r \ n \ r \ n
Related judgments — Federal Tax Ombudsman Pakistan, 2012
