MST. UZMA NASIM, LAHORE versus C.I.R., ZONE-X, R.T.O.-II, LAHORE
Sections 111 (1) (b), 122 (5) and 182 Claims of the father of the deceased income taxpayer's taxpayer The investment made by the taxpayer was made by the late father who inherited it. He was asked to provide details of his father's legal heritage and evidence of his father's investment. Taxpayers said she was the only nominee and there was no conflict of legal heritage. And the point raised by the tax officer was not authentic. The investment was received as a nominated candidate after the death of his father, without appreciating the facts and scrutinizing the evidence presented by the taxpayer. The objections raised by his father's investment in designation and the taxation officer raised that nothing was involved in proving the dispute, as well as the facts and circumstances of the case. Contrary to which the investment had received a disapproving source. After the death of his father, the legacy was deliberately ignored by the documentary evidence presented by him at the diagnostic stage so that he could be burdened with a huge tax burden that was not justified by any imagination. It could be said that the first appellate authority also retained it to be treated concurrently by the taxation officer without any advice. The evidence presented to him was not retained by the tax officer and was not retained. The first appellant upheld the same enhancement made under section 111 (1) (b) of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001 Wright had made a mistake in the law and had to appeal it
