AGL 40.00 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
AIRLINK 129.06 Decreased By ▼ -0.47 (-0.36%)
BOP 6.75 Increased By ▲ 0.07 (1.05%)
CNERGY 4.49 Decreased By ▼ -0.14 (-3.02%)
DCL 8.55 Decreased By ▼ -0.39 (-4.36%)
DFML 40.82 Decreased By ▼ -0.87 (-2.09%)
DGKC 80.96 Decreased By ▼ -2.81 (-3.35%)
FCCL 32.77 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
FFBL 74.43 Decreased By ▼ -1.04 (-1.38%)
FFL 11.74 Increased By ▲ 0.27 (2.35%)
HUBC 109.58 Decreased By ▼ -0.97 (-0.88%)
HUMNL 13.75 Decreased By ▼ -0.81 (-5.56%)
KEL 5.31 Decreased By ▼ -0.08 (-1.48%)
KOSM 7.72 Decreased By ▼ -0.68 (-8.1%)
MLCF 38.60 Decreased By ▼ -1.19 (-2.99%)
NBP 63.51 Increased By ▲ 3.22 (5.34%)
OGDC 194.69 Decreased By ▼ -4.97 (-2.49%)
PAEL 25.71 Decreased By ▼ -0.94 (-3.53%)
PIBTL 7.39 Decreased By ▼ -0.27 (-3.52%)
PPL 155.45 Decreased By ▼ -2.47 (-1.56%)
PRL 25.79 Decreased By ▼ -0.94 (-3.52%)
PTC 17.50 Decreased By ▼ -0.96 (-5.2%)
SEARL 78.65 Decreased By ▼ -3.79 (-4.6%)
TELE 7.86 Decreased By ▼ -0.45 (-5.42%)
TOMCL 33.73 Decreased By ▼ -0.78 (-2.26%)
TPLP 8.40 Decreased By ▼ -0.66 (-7.28%)
TREET 16.27 Decreased By ▼ -1.20 (-6.87%)
TRG 58.22 Decreased By ▼ -3.10 (-5.06%)
UNITY 27.49 Increased By ▲ 0.06 (0.22%)
WTL 1.39 Increased By ▲ 0.01 (0.72%)
BR100 10,445 Increased By 38.5 (0.37%)
BR30 31,189 Decreased By -523.9 (-1.65%)
KSE100 97,798 Increased By 469.8 (0.48%)
KSE30 30,481 Increased By 288.3 (0.95%)

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.