GOOD LUCK TRADING COMPANY, RAWALPINDI versus CIR, RTO, RAWALPINDI
Sections 221 and 2 (38A) Mistake Correction Miscellaneous Application Taxation Officer and Deputy Commissioner of Land Revenue Jurisdiction Appellate Tribunal stated in its order that the taxation officer had treated the taxpayers as an industrial affair and workers in miscellaneous appeals. Welfare fund is levied by taxpayers. The notice under section 221 was issued by the Deputy Commissioner Inland Revenue, its assessment was recorded by the Deputy Commissioner Inland Revenue, not by the tax officer but the appellate tribunal. Section 2 (38A) of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001 was inserted through the Finance (Amendment) Ordinance, 2009, which expired four months later, because it was not approved by the National Assembly. And the deputy commissioner Inland Revenue recorded the order after four months was not legal and it was without jurisdiction and when any law was automatically terminated, during the expiration of the law There could be no legal proceedings after the proceedings. Its expiration date is because it would be equivalent to the enforcement of dead legality. It was mentioned at the end of the paragraph of the appellate tribunal order that the taxation officer issued the notice, once again the taxation officer dealt with the taxpayers properly; The notice, as well as the review, was taken by Deputy Commissioner Inland Revenue, whose authority had not received any mention in the Workers Welfare Ordinance, which was floating above the record level of error of 1971, due to such error, the jurisdiction was appropriate. Answer N
