Find a Lawyer

I.TA. NO. 1154(1-B)/1986-87, DECIDED ON 15TH MAY, 1992. versus I.TA. NO. 1154(1-B)/1986-87, DECIDED ON 15TH MAY, 1992.

In addition to the section 132 (1) (c) filed by the appellant, the appellant and the jurisdiction were taken by the appellate assistant commissioner before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal by the appraisal officer below in the context of justification. On other grounds it was rejected that the appellant was an assistant commissioner. Section 132 of the Ordinance did not justify bringing a new dimension to the matter which was not a matter of appeal to him, it was found without the words of the article as it was in section 132 (1) (c) of the Ordinance. Is suitable. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner can confirm the increase made for various reasons and such a finding has to be made on its own merits. best advocate from Mardan lawyer