AGL 40.00 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
AIRLINK 127.04 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
BOP 6.67 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
CNERGY 4.51 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
DCL 8.55 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
DFML 41.44 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
DGKC 86.85 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
FCCL 32.28 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
FFBL 64.80 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
FFL 10.25 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
HUBC 109.57 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
HUMNL 14.68 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
KEL 5.05 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
KOSM 7.46 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
MLCF 41.38 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
NBP 60.41 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
OGDC 190.10 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
PAEL 27.83 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
PIBTL 7.83 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
PPL 150.06 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
PRL 26.88 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
PTC 16.07 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
SEARL 86.00 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
TELE 7.71 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
TOMCL 35.41 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
TPLP 8.12 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
TREET 16.41 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
TRG 53.29 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
UNITY 26.16 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
WTL 1.26 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
BR100 10,010 Increased By 126.5 (1.28%)
BR30 31,023 Increased By 422.5 (1.38%)
KSE100 94,192 Increased By 836.5 (0.9%)
KSE30 29,201 Increased By 270.2 (0.93%)

Income Tax Bar Association (ITBA) on Thursday termed the amendment made in Income Tax Ordinance (ITO), 2001 through S.R.O. 09(1)/2011 as draconian for taxpayers. In a letter to the high-ups in the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) said the board had made public the S.R.0. 09 (1)/2011 on January 6, 2011 to intimate active taxpayers regarding the proposed insertion of Rule 81 B.
The bar, after thorough examination of the proposed rule, is of the view that the said rule would affect every taxpayer across the country. Therefore, they have rejected the contents of the said S.R.O for the following reasons.
-- The functions and powers delegated under this S.R.O. have negated the various available provisions contained in the Income Tax Ordinance 2001.
-- The record and data of FBR is not updated properly and the web portal of PRAL faces numerous technical problems and the unwarranted use of this law will be disastrous and will have negative impact on the business activities of the existing taxpayers.
-- The Bar is of the opinion that the taxpayer once suspended will have to run from pillar to post and their request will not be accepted without gratification which is very rampant in tax departments.
-- This S.R.O will be considered a great tool to discourage the existing taxpayers as the element of harassment and high handedness cannot be ruled out while exercising the powers available in the proposed rule.
-- It is irony of fate that the FBR has failed to achieve the task of broadening the tax base, the use of this S.R.O will further depress the business activities of the existing taxpayers and will also be considered as detrimental to the policies of facilitation and mutual trust which has remained a policy matter of reforms.
When contacted Ali A Rahim, president ITBA, said this exercise was already practiced in Sales Tax regime but remained unsuccessful because of reactivation of any inactive taxpayer issue. He also warned the authority concerned that if the said amendment implemented, the whole taxation machinery would be choked.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2011

Comments

Comments are closed.