Find a Lawyer

ALLIED FLOUR MILLS (PVT.) LTD., NOWSHERA versus SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD

The establishment of the Section 122 (5A) Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000V) is a different place to accept grinding, inspecting the Additional Commissioner in response to the Section 2 (3) assessment floor mill notice. Without examining the matter, the officer's arrangements were illegal and he was biased in the interest of revenue. To take further action and see the reality of the grinding arrangement, the Assisi was asked to prepare the parties for cross-inspection, otherwise it would be indicated that the grinding is estimated on its own grinding and Accordingly, the review shall be amended accordingly, Section 122 of the Income-tax Ordinance, 5A of 2001) was issued on a completely false assumption and the relevant material was asked to ignore the record. There can be no valid reason why, when the error was made, it was biased towards tax benefits. The assumption was made by the Complainant / Assisi in which the Additional Commissioner of Inspection played the role of a diagnostic officer himself and initiated the diagnostic proceeding by requiring the complainant to prepare the parties, even The wheat inspector commissioner, even on this occasion, believes that the parties were fake and had no real reason to misunderstand this assessment on the basis that it merely suspects the additional commissioner for inspection. It was biased to take advantage of the tax revenue, step into the shoes of the diagnostic officer and inspect Eddie Tap fresh Commissioner observed that if the parties were not ready for cross-examination, the grinding will be on their own account top advocates from Phagwar lawyer