AGL 40.00 Decreased By ▼ -0.16 (-0.4%)
AIRLINK 129.53 Decreased By ▼ -2.20 (-1.67%)
BOP 6.68 Decreased By ▼ -0.01 (-0.15%)
CNERGY 4.63 Increased By ▲ 0.16 (3.58%)
DCL 8.94 Increased By ▲ 0.12 (1.36%)
DFML 41.69 Increased By ▲ 1.08 (2.66%)
DGKC 83.77 Decreased By ▼ -0.31 (-0.37%)
FCCL 32.77 Increased By ▲ 0.43 (1.33%)
FFBL 75.47 Increased By ▲ 6.86 (10%)
FFL 11.47 Increased By ▲ 0.12 (1.06%)
HUBC 110.55 Decreased By ▼ -1.21 (-1.08%)
HUMNL 14.56 Increased By ▲ 0.25 (1.75%)
KEL 5.39 Increased By ▲ 0.17 (3.26%)
KOSM 8.40 Decreased By ▼ -0.58 (-6.46%)
MLCF 39.79 Increased By ▲ 0.36 (0.91%)
NBP 60.29 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
OGDC 199.66 Increased By ▲ 4.72 (2.42%)
PAEL 26.65 Decreased By ▼ -0.04 (-0.15%)
PIBTL 7.66 Increased By ▲ 0.18 (2.41%)
PPL 157.92 Increased By ▲ 2.15 (1.38%)
PRL 26.73 Increased By ▲ 0.05 (0.19%)
PTC 18.46 Increased By ▲ 0.16 (0.87%)
SEARL 82.44 Decreased By ▼ -0.58 (-0.7%)
TELE 8.31 Increased By ▲ 0.08 (0.97%)
TOMCL 34.51 Decreased By ▼ -0.04 (-0.12%)
TPLP 9.06 Increased By ▲ 0.25 (2.84%)
TREET 17.47 Increased By ▲ 0.77 (4.61%)
TRG 61.32 Decreased By ▼ -1.13 (-1.81%)
UNITY 27.43 Decreased By ▼ -0.01 (-0.04%)
WTL 1.38 Increased By ▲ 0.10 (7.81%)
BR100 10,407 Increased By 220 (2.16%)
BR30 31,713 Increased By 377.1 (1.2%)
KSE100 97,328 Increased By 1781.9 (1.86%)
KSE30 30,192 Increased By 614.4 (2.08%)

LAHORE: The tax department has failed to object to adjustment of unverified refund towards current year’s liability. An assessment officer of Corporate Tax Office (CTO) had objected to the adjustment of previous year refund towards the current year’s tax liability.

The assessment officer had observed that the taxpayer, a poultry feed manufacturer, had wrongfully adjusted unverified refund of previous year towards the current year’s tax liability. This was termed as mistake warranting rectification under the law.

Accordingly, he issued notice to the taxpayer for explanation. However, the taxpayer couldn’t furnish reply to the notice, followed by passing of the controversial order by the assessment officer.

In his appeal before the Commission, the taxpayer contended that the adjustment was as per rules as well as established practice. He said the officer of Inland Revenue had failed to establish the existence of mistake apparent from record in the self-assessment order.

He further explained that adjustment of refund was as per format of the return of total income prescribed under the Income Tax Rules, 2002 and disallowance of adjustment without proving its admissibility in relevant tax year was illegal.

According to the taxpayer, there was a column under the head of computation with description ‘refund adjustment of other year(s) against demand of this year’. He had made the adjustment in question under this column, as there was no requirement of additional documentation for making the adjustment. He maintained that unless refund claimed by a taxpayer is found inadmissible after due verification under the law, the same cannot be disallowed merely on basis that it was unverified.

He said the department has neither disputed tax overpaid for preceding year nor was there any verification process employed by the department to declare it is inadmissible.

He further said that the observation of the department that refund is only due when the Commissioner is satisfied that tax has been overpaid and an adjustment is due as per law is misconceived because such provision of law becomes relevant where issuance or adjustment of refund is made by the department, and not by the taxpayer.

However, the Commissioner Appeals rejected the appeal, but his order could not sustain at the higher appellate forums.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2024

Comments

Comments are closed.