AGL 35.70 Increased By ▲ 0.95 (2.73%)
AIRLINK 133.50 Decreased By ▼ -2.60 (-1.91%)
BOP 4.97 Decreased By ▼ -0.07 (-1.39%)
CNERGY 4.03 Decreased By ▼ -0.12 (-2.89%)
DCL 8.42 Decreased By ▼ -0.18 (-2.09%)
DFML 47.40 Decreased By ▼ -1.53 (-3.13%)
DGKC 75.00 Decreased By ▼ -0.75 (-0.99%)
FCCL 24.25 Increased By ▲ 0.06 (0.25%)
FFBL 46.00 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
FFL 8.93 Decreased By ▼ -0.12 (-1.33%)
HUBC 154.10 Increased By ▲ 1.25 (0.82%)
HUMNL 11.00 Increased By ▲ 0.23 (2.14%)
KEL 4.06 Increased By ▲ 0.04 (1%)
KOSM 8.88 Decreased By ▼ -0.01 (-0.11%)
MLCF 32.75 Decreased By ▼ -0.26 (-0.79%)
NBP 57.80 Decreased By ▼ -0.10 (-0.17%)
OGDC 142.80 Increased By ▲ 1.50 (1.06%)
PAEL 26.01 Increased By ▲ 0.31 (1.21%)
PIBTL 5.92 Decreased By ▼ -0.12 (-1.99%)
PPL 114.60 Decreased By ▼ -0.10 (-0.09%)
PRL 24.15 Decreased By ▼ -0.10 (-0.41%)
PTC 11.47 Decreased By ▼ -0.06 (-0.52%)
SEARL 58.00 Increased By ▲ 0.50 (0.87%)
TELE 7.71 Decreased By ▼ -0.04 (-0.52%)
TOMCL 41.14 Increased By ▲ 0.44 (1.08%)
TPLP 8.67 Increased By ▲ 0.09 (1.05%)
TREET 15.08 Increased By ▲ 0.05 (0.33%)
TRG 59.90 Increased By ▲ 5.42 (9.95%)
UNITY 28.00 Decreased By ▼ -0.50 (-1.75%)
WTL 1.35 Decreased By ▼ -0.04 (-2.88%)
BR100 8,460 Increased By 83.9 (1%)
BR30 27,268 Increased By 161.9 (0.6%)
KSE100 80,461 Increased By 970.2 (1.22%)
KSE30 25,468 Increased By 399.6 (1.59%)

LAHORE: The tax department has failed to object to adjustment of unverified refund towards current year’s liability. An assessment officer of Corporate Tax Office (CTO) had objected to the adjustment of previous year refund towards the current year’s tax liability.

The assessment officer had observed that the taxpayer, a poultry feed manufacturer, had wrongfully adjusted unverified refund of previous year towards the current year’s tax liability. This was termed as mistake warranting rectification under the law.

Accordingly, he issued notice to the taxpayer for explanation. However, the taxpayer couldn’t furnish reply to the notice, followed by passing of the controversial order by the assessment officer.

In his appeal before the Commission, the taxpayer contended that the adjustment was as per rules as well as established practice. He said the officer of Inland Revenue had failed to establish the existence of mistake apparent from record in the self-assessment order.

He further explained that adjustment of refund was as per format of the return of total income prescribed under the Income Tax Rules, 2002 and disallowance of adjustment without proving its admissibility in relevant tax year was illegal.

According to the taxpayer, there was a column under the head of computation with description ‘refund adjustment of other year(s) against demand of this year’. He had made the adjustment in question under this column, as there was no requirement of additional documentation for making the adjustment. He maintained that unless refund claimed by a taxpayer is found inadmissible after due verification under the law, the same cannot be disallowed merely on basis that it was unverified.

He said the department has neither disputed tax overpaid for preceding year nor was there any verification process employed by the department to declare it is inadmissible.

He further said that the observation of the department that refund is only due when the Commissioner is satisfied that tax has been overpaid and an adjustment is due as per law is misconceived because such provision of law becomes relevant where issuance or adjustment of refund is made by the department, and not by the taxpayer.

However, the Commissioner Appeals rejected the appeal, but his order could not sustain at the higher appellate forums.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2024

Comments

Comments are closed.