AIRLINK 184.30 Increased By ▲ 0.44 (0.24%)
BOP 12.12 Increased By ▲ 0.30 (2.54%)
CNERGY 7.48 Decreased By ▼ -0.04 (-0.53%)
FCCL 48.15 Increased By ▲ 1.77 (3.82%)
FFL 16.28 Increased By ▲ 0.13 (0.8%)
FLYNG 28.35 Increased By ▲ 0.57 (2.05%)
HUBC 139.59 Increased By ▲ 4.50 (3.33%)
HUMNL 13.18 Increased By ▲ 0.12 (0.92%)
KEL 4.63 Increased By ▲ 0.01 (0.22%)
KOSM 6.30 Increased By ▲ 0.10 (1.61%)
MLCF 60.22 Increased By ▲ 1.05 (1.77%)
OGDC 222.50 Decreased By ▼ -0.56 (-0.25%)
PACE 6.05 Increased By ▲ 0.26 (4.49%)
PAEL 45.49 Increased By ▲ 0.54 (1.2%)
PIAHCLA 18.04 Increased By ▲ 0.38 (2.15%)
PIBTL 10.72 Increased By ▲ 0.06 (0.56%)
POWER 11.90 Increased By ▲ 0.17 (1.45%)
PPL 187.00 Decreased By ▼ -0.05 (-0.03%)
PRL 36.37 Increased By ▲ 0.10 (0.28%)
PTC 24.69 Decreased By ▼ -0.08 (-0.32%)
SEARL 101.19 Increased By ▲ 0.24 (0.24%)
SILK 1.15 Decreased By ▼ -0.02 (-1.71%)
SSGC 36.68 Decreased By ▼ -0.28 (-0.76%)
SYM 15.78 Increased By ▲ 0.09 (0.57%)
TELE 7.99 Increased By ▲ 0.11 (1.4%)
TPLP 11.36 Increased By ▲ 0.53 (4.89%)
TRG 69.55 Increased By ▲ 2.93 (4.4%)
WAVESAPP 10.87 Increased By ▲ 0.05 (0.46%)
WTL 1.35 Increased By ▲ 0.02 (1.5%)
YOUW 3.80 Decreased By ▼ -0.01 (-0.26%)
AIRLINK 184.30 Increased By ▲ 0.44 (0.24%)
BOP 12.12 Increased By ▲ 0.30 (2.54%)
CNERGY 7.48 Decreased By ▼ -0.04 (-0.53%)
FCCL 48.15 Increased By ▲ 1.77 (3.82%)
FFL 16.28 Increased By ▲ 0.13 (0.8%)
FLYNG 28.35 Increased By ▲ 0.57 (2.05%)
HUBC 139.59 Increased By ▲ 4.50 (3.33%)
HUMNL 13.18 Increased By ▲ 0.12 (0.92%)
KEL 4.63 Increased By ▲ 0.01 (0.22%)
KOSM 6.30 Increased By ▲ 0.10 (1.61%)
MLCF 60.22 Increased By ▲ 1.05 (1.77%)
OGDC 222.50 Decreased By ▼ -0.56 (-0.25%)
PACE 6.05 Increased By ▲ 0.26 (4.49%)
PAEL 45.49 Increased By ▲ 0.54 (1.2%)
PIAHCLA 18.04 Increased By ▲ 0.38 (2.15%)
PIBTL 10.72 Increased By ▲ 0.06 (0.56%)
POWER 11.90 Increased By ▲ 0.17 (1.45%)
PPL 187.00 Decreased By ▼ -0.05 (-0.03%)
PRL 36.37 Increased By ▲ 0.10 (0.28%)
PTC 24.69 Decreased By ▼ -0.08 (-0.32%)
SEARL 101.19 Increased By ▲ 0.24 (0.24%)
SILK 1.15 Decreased By ▼ -0.02 (-1.71%)
SSGC 36.68 Decreased By ▼ -0.28 (-0.76%)
SYM 15.78 Increased By ▲ 0.09 (0.57%)
TELE 7.99 Increased By ▲ 0.11 (1.4%)
TPLP 11.36 Increased By ▲ 0.53 (4.89%)
TRG 69.55 Increased By ▲ 2.93 (4.4%)
WAVESAPP 10.87 Increased By ▲ 0.05 (0.46%)
WTL 1.35 Increased By ▲ 0.02 (1.5%)
YOUW 3.80 Decreased By ▼ -0.01 (-0.26%)
BR100 12,536 Increased By 78.6 (0.63%)
BR30 38,840 Increased By 532.9 (1.39%)
KSE100 117,640 Increased By 638.6 (0.55%)
KSE30 36,376 Increased By 241.8 (0.67%)

LAHORE: A tax appellate forum has declared that failure on the part of an assessee to submit documents within prescribed period of time for availing self-assessment scheme cannot be made basis to deprive him of the benefit of the scheme.

According to details, the taxpayer after filing a return under the scheme wrote a letter to the income tax officer to inform him about making certain corrections in the columns of income tax form after furnishing a return.

However, the assessing officer while passing his order came to the conclusion that the applicant had filed a revised return which was done after the extended date of filing of return, therefore, it was not qualified under the self-assessment scheme and was not immune from total audit.

The relevant forum maintained that if a person having furnished a return, discovers any omission or wrong statement therein, he may, without prejudice to any liability incurred, may furnish a return at any time before the assessment is made.

It further said that writing a letter to the income tax officer while making certain corrections in the columns of the income tax form would amount to filing a revised return under the law.

The taxpayer had never altered the total amount of income or the tax so payable, and it was only by way of a letter that the taxpayer approached the income tax officer by stating that the mistake is in respect of placing the correct figures in relevant columns.

It had no effect on the liability of tax, not any income was revised upwards or downwards. Income in both the situations was shown as higher by 20 percent from the income so assessed in the immediate past assessment year.

The appellate forum declared him qualified under the self-assessment scheme, as it does not tantamount to a revision of income or a revised return without having any direct impact on the total income of the taxpayer.

It pointed out that the scheme being initiated for benefit of a taxpayer as well as seeking higher taxes with a minimum increase of 20 percent of income in favour of the department, has to be construed liberally and not strictly, or in the manner as has been done in the present case.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2025

Comments

200 characters