LAHORE: The Lahore High Court (LHC) while taking a petition, directed the Federal Board of Revenue to decide the question of jurisdiction at first instance before further proceedings in the matter of amendment to assessment under section 122 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 for Tax Year 2013.
The LHC issued the directive on a petition filed by a taxpayer through Advocate Waheed Shahzad Butt, challenging show-cause notice for amendment to assessment proceedings under section 122 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 by the RTO Gujranwala.
It is to be noted that the RTO Gujranwala initiated amendment regarding assessment proceedings by issuing notice under section 122(5A) of the Ordinance for Tax Year 2013. However, the taxpayer challenged the proceedings in LHC under writ jurisdiction, wherein it the apex court directed that the official will consider reply of the petitioner to the impugned notice and decide the question of his jurisdiction at the first instance through ‘speaking order’ before further proceedings in the matter.
The petitioner stated that “no cogent grounds/reasons” definite information had been given in “what he called” vague notice for amendment to assessment, needless to state that no such power rests with the respondent to exercise powers under section 122(5A) of the Ordinance. Instead of clarifying the matter of lawful jurisdiction a corrigendum was issued by the RTO wherein it had been mentioned that section 122(5A) of the Ordinance had inadvertently been typed. The action of the respondent (IRAO) is in clear violation of provisions of section 210 of the Ordinance hence the void notice issued by the RTO is without lawful authority and a nullity in the eyes of law. If the law had prescribed a specific method for doing a thing in a specific manner, such provision of law is to be followed in letter and spirit and achieving or attaining the objective of performing or doing a thing in a manner other than provided by law would not be permitted. The power exercised by the Respondent is a rare instance of overstepping the lawful jurisdiction available with IRS authorities, it said.
