C.I.T., LEGAL DIVISION, LTU, LAHORE versus AUTOMOTIVE COMPONENTS LTD., LAHORE
Sections 221, 182 (3) and 165, correction of error, prior to the submission of the application for correction of the pre-order, the receipt of the submission of the restraining statement was filed on the ground that the request was rejected. That the statements presented at the time of the approval of the penalty order were not. Despite the proper service of the notice, the taxpayers did not submit a part of the record nor did the First Appellate Authority demand the rejection of the application under section 2121 of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001 and it was claimed in the eyes of the law department. Statements must be filed during the penalty process. , Which can no longer be taken as part of the record, the taxpayers claimed that statements were filed on 30 6 2006, which was admitted. And the taxation officer could not deny the correction without verifying the confession of the statements, the penalty order was approved on 23 10 2008, while the statements were filed in June, 2006, for the purpose of correction. Should have been taken as part of the record. It was the responsibility of the accuracy tax officer to consult the relevant records to ascertain whether the statement submitted on the date of receipt of the certificate was furnished or if the statement was found to be genuine, His presence before the taxation officer, during the penalty proceedings, was beyond the control of the taxpayers. Taxpayers could not be fined for any fault in the department's system which resulted in the filing in June 2006. The case did not become part of the record until December December 2008. ly cannot be easily interpreted as appropriate
