AGL 37.01 Decreased By ▼ -0.99 (-2.61%)
AIRLINK 132.60 Decreased By ▼ -4.09 (-2.99%)
BOP 5.51 Increased By ▲ 0.09 (1.66%)
CNERGY 3.79 Decreased By ▼ -0.04 (-1.04%)
DCL 7.48 Decreased By ▼ -0.11 (-1.45%)
DFML 44.81 Decreased By ▼ -1.24 (-2.69%)
DGKC 81.20 Increased By ▲ 0.85 (1.06%)
FCCL 28.65 Increased By ▲ 0.62 (2.21%)
FFBL 54.75 Decreased By ▼ -0.46 (-0.83%)
FFL 8.55 Decreased By ▼ -0.03 (-0.35%)
HUBC 107.90 Decreased By ▼ -4.75 (-4.22%)
HUMNL 13.56 Increased By ▲ 1.23 (9.98%)
KEL 3.81 Decreased By ▼ -0.04 (-1.04%)
KOSM 7.04 Decreased By ▼ -1.03 (-12.76%)
MLCF 36.25 Increased By ▲ 1.14 (3.25%)
NBP 67.30 Increased By ▲ 1.30 (1.97%)
OGDC 169.49 Decreased By ▼ -1.67 (-0.98%)
PAEL 24.88 Decreased By ▼ -0.30 (-1.19%)
PIBTL 6.15 Decreased By ▼ -0.05 (-0.81%)
PPL 130.70 Decreased By ▼ -2.15 (-1.62%)
PRL 24.50 Increased By ▲ 0.10 (0.41%)
PTC 15.77 Increased By ▲ 1.25 (8.61%)
SEARL 57.80 Decreased By ▼ -1.15 (-1.95%)
TELE 6.99 Decreased By ▼ -0.10 (-1.41%)
TOMCL 34.73 Decreased By ▼ -0.27 (-0.77%)
TPLP 7.70 Decreased By ▼ -0.39 (-4.82%)
TREET 13.96 Decreased By ▼ -0.34 (-2.38%)
TRG 44.25 Decreased By ▼ -1.34 (-2.94%)
UNITY 25.15 Decreased By ▼ -0.84 (-3.23%)
WTL 1.18 Decreased By ▼ -0.02 (-1.67%)
BR100 9,082 Decreased By -1.8 (-0.02%)
BR30 27,380 Decreased By -251 (-0.91%)
KSE100 85,483 Increased By 30.2 (0.04%)
KSE30 27,160 Increased By 10.7 (0.04%)

LAHORE: A taxpayer company has challenged unwarranted recovery of advance tax by the tax department, saying that the department did not have power to reject the advance tax estimates for the March 2024 Quarter.

The company; therefore, challenged the unwarranted recovery of advance tax by the department under Section 147 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 through a recovery notice issued under Section 138 of the Ordinance.

The department had called upon the company to pay its liability as advance tax liability. The company had paid the amount as advance tax on the basis of its estimates.

The department re-calculated the liability for the stated period on the basis of amended assessment under Section 122(5A) of the ITO and issued a revised notice with an increased tax demand of the advance tax liability. It was followed by issuance of recovery notice.

The company challenged the recovery notice on the ground that the department did not have any jurisdiction to question the veracity of the estimate for the tax period in question. However, if the department Respondent did not agree with the figure paid as advance tax for the period assessed vide the estimates by the taxpayer, the department had an option to impose default surcharge at the stage once the returns had been furnished.

However, the department maintained that the taxpayer’s case was of no estimation of advance tax. It is rather an estimation which is on the lower side or erroneous.

The relevant appellate forum held the law has allowed taxpayers to file an estimate of their advance tax payable and pay the amount they believe was due. However, the law did not grant taxation authorities the authority to recover the amount due under section 147. Instead, the ITO relied on taxpayer’s self-assessment, and taxation authorities could reassess tax returns in compliance with the ITO and seek recovery of non-payment or short payment of advance tax u/s 147 based on this reassessment. It set aside the recovery notice and maintained the department can re-determine the advance tax owed by the company after filing returns and if the determined amount exceeds the already paid amount, a default surcharge may be imposed.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2024

Comments

Comments are closed.