COMMISSIONER (LEGAL DIVISION), LARGE TAXPAYERS UNIT, KARACHI versus PARACHA TEXTILE MILLS LTD., KARACHI
Sections 60, 80C and 156 Error Correction Income Tax Appeal Tribunal, Scope Income Tax Appeal Tribunal had earlier allowed the appeal filed by the Income Tax Authorities but later withdrew its order and reversed its findings. Because of this, the authorities raised that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal had no authority. The authority to review or revoke an earlier order is that the Legal Income Tax Appellate Tribunal had earlier allowed the appeal of the department by recording some false facts which were not related to the appeal of the parties and they were clear and clear on the record. There were patents when the correction application was filed, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal withdrew its order and replaced one paragraph of the next order with a fresh paragraph in the subsequent order, although the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal There was no option to review your order, however, to completely fix any mistake in its order. Was an option. The error was a manifest and patent error on record and may not be a hmetic or cognitive error but it could be a proven or practical error before the mistake made by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was assessed as prejudicial. , He rediscovered the utterly false fact that was later corrected and corrected by his income tax appeal. Under Section 156 of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979, the Tribunal was fully authorized to disclose its error and to correct its patent on record so that the notice of hearing in this regard should be provided to both parties as the Income Tax Appellant. The tribunal withdrew its order. To reach the conclusion that they
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2010
