WARID TELECOM VS COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE
2013 P T D 1598
2013 P T D 1598
[Islamabad High Court]
Before Muhammad Anwar Khan Kasi, C.J. and Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui, J
WARID TELECOM
Versus
COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE and others
I.C.A. No.552 of 2013, decided on 28/03/2013.
(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)---
----Ss. 120, 177 [as amended by Finance Act (XVI of 2010)] & 214(c)---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Self -assessment finalized under S. 120 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001---Notice under S.177(1) of Ordinance, 2001 issued to assessee requiring him to produce record/documents pertaining to such assessment for conducting tax audit by Commissioner---Assessee's plea was that self-assessment once finalized ' could not be reopened---Validity---Commissioner under 5.177 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 had power to conduct tax audit to verify assessment---Object of S. 177 of the Ordinance was not to frustrate self-assessment scheme---Section 214(c) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 empowered Board with a view to have a check upon subordinate authorities to confirm that assessment were properly made---Section 177 of the Ordinance was not violative of provisions of the Constitution---Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.
(b) Interpretation of statutes---
----Fiscal statute---Procedural provisions would be construed in a manner to advance object behind thereof.
Ahmed Bashir and Kazim Jan for Appellant.
None for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 28th March, 2013.
ORDER
MUHAMMAD ANWAR KHAN KASI, C.J.---This I.C.A. challenges the judgment dated 12-3-2013 passed by learned Single Judge in Chambers by holding that section 177 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 is not violative of any Article of the Constitution and cannot be treated as discriminatory, while section 214(c) of the Income Tax Ordinance is an independent section and is not subsequent to section 177.
2. It is inter alia contended that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate law and facts of the case, and misread the documentary evidence.
3. It is next submitted that the appellant had filed the complete Income Tax Return for the Tax year, 2009 on 5-1-2010, which was accepted and finalized under section 120 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 and, therefore, the impugned notice dated 8-10-2010 issued by respondent No. 1 under section 177(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 to furnish records/documents for the period relating to Tax year 2009 for conducting audit of Income Tax affairs is without any lawful justification.
4.It is also contended that the entire process starting from issuance of notice dated 8-10-2010 ending with issuance of show cause notice dated 19-1-2012 is based on mala fides and illegal.
5.Learned counsel also challenged the vires of section 177(1) of the Ordinance.
6. Heard and record perused.
7. Section 177 has been placed in Chapter 10 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 and is prescribing the procedure and it is settled principle of law that procedural provisions must be construed to advance the object behind the provisions.
8. The commissioner under this section has the authority to conduct the audit of the Income Tax affairs including examination of accounts and records, whereafter he shall verify the assessment, therefore, section 177 cannot be said to frustrate self assessment scheme.
9. On the other hand, section 214(C) has been placed in Chapter-II of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, which relates to the administration of Tax Authorities and sections 214(b) and 214(c) prescribe the powers Il of Board to call for any record.
10. It is thus clear that the object of section 214(c) is to empower the Board to have a check upon the subordinate officers to confirm that assessments are properly made.
11. The learned Single Judge discussed all the aspects of the case and came to the conclusion that section 177(i) is not contrary to the provisions of the Articles of the Constitution and the respondent under law has the authority to ask for the audit of the accounts of the Income Tax payers.
12. We, therefore, see no reason to interface in impugned Judgment and the appeal is, therefore, dismissed in limine.
SAK/102/IslAppeal dismissed.