SIRAJUDDIN KHALID versus THE SECRETARY REVENUE DIVISION ISLAMABAD
Section 122 (5A) of the Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), Sections 2 (3), 9, 10 and 11 of the Income Tax Assessment of the Assessment Year 2002 2003 finalized by the Income Tax Authorities Is. As a result of the implementation of the Tax Ordinance, 1979, the Finance Act 2003, the Income Tax Authority sought to amend this assessment through the provisions of Section 122 (5A) of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001, saying that the complainant of this amendment complained. It was on this basis. Section 122 (5A) was subsequently filed by the Finance Act, 2003, required by law to be \ possibly applicable and with disappointment in amending the complainant's income tax assessment. No, which was already finalized under the canceled Ordinance Complainant. The High Court accepted the plea barring sub-section (5A) of Section 122 of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001, which followed the High Court decision. In a number of similar cases, the Department's attempt to reopen the already completed Income Tax Assessment failed in the Federal Board of Revenue, rather than accept a straightforward decision of the High Court, Is beyond doubt. The appeal before the Supreme Court, which also failed to appeal because the Supreme Court upheld the High Court order, complained that the relevant tax officers, choosing to file an appeal in the Supreme Court against the High Court verdict. Had made the wrong decision regarding the hearing loss. Screening requests to submit citations or appeal for advanced appeals through time, effort and scant financial resources by the Federal Board of Revenue
Related judgments — Federal Tax Ombudsman Pakistan, 2011
