AIRLINK 193.56 Decreased By ▼ -1.27 (-0.65%)
BOP 9.95 Increased By ▲ 0.14 (1.43%)
CNERGY 7.93 Increased By ▲ 0.57 (7.74%)
FCCL 40.65 Increased By ▲ 2.07 (5.37%)
FFL 16.86 Increased By ▲ 0.41 (2.49%)
FLYNG 27.75 Increased By ▲ 0.21 (0.76%)
HUBC 132.58 Increased By ▲ 0.83 (0.63%)
HUMNL 13.89 Increased By ▲ 0.03 (0.22%)
KEL 4.60 Decreased By ▼ -0.06 (-1.29%)
KOSM 6.62 Decreased By ▼ -0.04 (-0.6%)
MLCF 47.60 Increased By ▲ 2.21 (4.87%)
OGDC 213.91 Decreased By ▼ -0.08 (-0.04%)
PACE 6.93 Increased By ▲ 0.07 (1.02%)
PAEL 41.24 Increased By ▲ 1.18 (2.95%)
PIAHCLA 17.15 Increased By ▲ 0.36 (2.14%)
PIBTL 8.41 Increased By ▲ 0.09 (1.08%)
POWER 9.64 Increased By ▲ 0.21 (2.23%)
PPL 182.35 Increased By ▲ 0.16 (0.09%)
PRL 41.96 Increased By ▲ 0.13 (0.31%)
PTC 24.90 Increased By ▲ 0.34 (1.38%)
SEARL 106.84 Increased By ▲ 4.31 (4.2%)
SILK 0.99 Decreased By ▼ -0.01 (-1%)
SSGC 40.10 Increased By ▲ 0.66 (1.67%)
SYM 17.47 Increased By ▲ 0.14 (0.81%)
TELE 8.84 Increased By ▲ 0.08 (0.91%)
TPLP 12.75 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
TRG 66.95 Increased By ▲ 1.55 (2.37%)
WAVESAPP 11.33 Increased By ▲ 0.22 (1.98%)
WTL 1.79 Increased By ▲ 0.09 (5.29%)
YOUW 4.07 Increased By ▲ 0.13 (3.3%)
BR100 12,045 Increased By 70.8 (0.59%)
BR30 36,580 Increased By 433.6 (1.2%)
KSE100 114,038 Increased By 594.4 (0.52%)
KSE30 35,794 Increased By 159 (0.45%)

LAHORE: A pipe manufacturer failed to shift onus on the tax department against deduction of withholding tax without submitting requisite record for identifying transactions in relation to which an obligation has not been discharged, said sources.

The department had initiated recovery proceedings after the failure of the taxpayers in deducting withholding obligations and providing required information. However, the manufacturer was of the view that it had carried out the exercise of deducting withholding tax but the department had initiated recovery proceedings without identifying the controversial transactions.

The department, on the other hand, was of the view that the taxpayer had failed to reply in accordance with the format required by the department and preferred to challenge the demand raised by the department on the plea that no individual transactions were identified before generating the demand. It could only be held responsible had the taxpayer produced required record.

The sources said the department had already sought filing of a reconciliation statement from the taxpayer, which was ignored by the later and approached the appellate forums to question the proceedings. Since the taxpayer had failed to furnish required information, therefore, the department was left with no option but to include the amounts deducted within the demand generated under the relevant provisions of the law. They further agitated that the taxpayer was extended various opportunities but he failed to provide the requisite record.

The tax authorities were of the view that they could make assessment and proceed to recoveries after the failure of taxpayer to produce record asked by the department to do so.

Interestingly, the appellate tribunal favoured the taxpayer and held the department responsible for not entertaining the record submitted by the taxpayer. However, the highest appellate forum the order passed by the tribunal was lacking clarity with regard to the information submitted by the taxpayer.

The tribunal had also ignored the fact that the department had sought reconciliation statement from the taxpayer, which the latter had failed to submit in accordance with the format required by the department.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2024

Comments

Comments are closed.