AGL 38.02 Increased By ▲ 0.08 (0.21%)
AIRLINK 197.36 Increased By ▲ 3.45 (1.78%)
BOP 9.54 Increased By ▲ 0.22 (2.36%)
CNERGY 5.91 Increased By ▲ 0.07 (1.2%)
DCL 8.82 Increased By ▲ 0.14 (1.61%)
DFML 35.74 Decreased By ▼ -0.72 (-1.97%)
DGKC 96.86 Increased By ▲ 4.32 (4.67%)
FCCL 35.25 Increased By ▲ 1.28 (3.77%)
FFBL 88.94 Increased By ▲ 6.64 (8.07%)
FFL 13.17 Increased By ▲ 0.42 (3.29%)
HUBC 127.55 Increased By ▲ 6.94 (5.75%)
HUMNL 13.50 Decreased By ▼ -0.10 (-0.74%)
KEL 5.32 Increased By ▲ 0.10 (1.92%)
KOSM 7.00 Increased By ▲ 0.48 (7.36%)
MLCF 44.70 Increased By ▲ 2.59 (6.15%)
NBP 61.42 Increased By ▲ 1.61 (2.69%)
OGDC 214.67 Increased By ▲ 3.50 (1.66%)
PAEL 38.79 Increased By ▲ 1.21 (3.22%)
PIBTL 8.25 Increased By ▲ 0.18 (2.23%)
PPL 193.08 Increased By ▲ 2.76 (1.45%)
PRL 38.66 Increased By ▲ 0.49 (1.28%)
PTC 25.80 Increased By ▲ 2.35 (10.02%)
SEARL 103.60 Increased By ▲ 5.66 (5.78%)
TELE 8.30 Increased By ▲ 0.08 (0.97%)
TOMCL 35.00 Decreased By ▼ -0.03 (-0.09%)
TPLP 13.30 Decreased By ▼ -0.25 (-1.85%)
TREET 22.16 Decreased By ▼ -0.57 (-2.51%)
TRG 55.59 Increased By ▲ 2.72 (5.14%)
UNITY 32.97 Increased By ▲ 0.01 (0.03%)
WTL 1.60 Increased By ▲ 0.08 (5.26%)
BR100 11,727 Increased By 342.7 (3.01%)
BR30 36,377 Increased By 1165.1 (3.31%)
KSE100 109,513 Increased By 3238.2 (3.05%)
KSE30 34,513 Increased By 1160.1 (3.48%)

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.