AIRLINK 195.14 Increased By ▲ 3.30 (1.72%)
BOP 10.18 Increased By ▲ 0.31 (3.14%)
CNERGY 7.86 Increased By ▲ 0.19 (2.48%)
FCCL 38.40 Increased By ▲ 0.54 (1.43%)
FFL 15.90 Increased By ▲ 0.14 (0.89%)
FLYNG 25.25 Decreased By ▼ -0.06 (-0.24%)
HUBC 131.25 Increased By ▲ 1.08 (0.83%)
HUMNL 13.97 Increased By ▲ 0.38 (2.8%)
KEL 4.68 Increased By ▲ 0.01 (0.21%)
KOSM 6.32 Increased By ▲ 0.11 (1.77%)
MLCF 45.25 Increased By ▲ 0.96 (2.17%)
OGDC 210.40 Increased By ▲ 3.53 (1.71%)
PACE 6.69 Increased By ▲ 0.13 (1.98%)
PAEL 41.27 Increased By ▲ 0.72 (1.78%)
PIAHCLA 17.85 Increased By ▲ 0.26 (1.48%)
PIBTL 8.12 Increased By ▲ 0.05 (0.62%)
POWER 9.35 Increased By ▲ 0.11 (1.19%)
PPL 181.50 Increased By ▲ 2.94 (1.65%)
PRL 40.42 Increased By ▲ 1.34 (3.43%)
PTC 24.70 Increased By ▲ 0.56 (2.32%)
SEARL 110.85 Increased By ▲ 3.00 (2.78%)
SILK 0.98 Increased By ▲ 0.01 (1.03%)
SSGC 38.71 Decreased By ▼ -0.40 (-1.02%)
SYM 19.18 Increased By ▲ 0.06 (0.31%)
TELE 8.72 Increased By ▲ 0.12 (1.4%)
TPLP 12.37 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
TRG 66.31 Increased By ▲ 0.30 (0.45%)
WAVESAPP 12.53 Decreased By ▼ -0.25 (-1.96%)
WTL 1.70 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
YOUW 3.94 Decreased By ▼ -0.01 (-0.25%)
BR100 12,079 Increased By 148.7 (1.25%)
BR30 36,124 Increased By 464.7 (1.3%)
KSE100 114,883 Increased By 1676.9 (1.48%)
KSE30 36,106 Increased By 540.8 (1.52%)

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.