M. As. (Stay) Nos.169/KB and 170/KB of 2001-2002, decided on 11th April, 2002. VS M. As. (Stay) Nos.169/KB and 170/KB of 2001-2002, decided on 11th April, 2002., 2002 PTD-INCOME-TAX-APPELLATE-TRIBUNAL-PAKISTAN 2142 (2002)

Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)‑‑‑

‑‑‑‑S.134(6)‑‑‑Appeal to Appellate Tribunal‑‑‑Grant of stay ‑‑‑Condition‑ Fact that assessee had paid 15% of the total demand had to be verified before the stay would be allowed till the hearing of the main appeal and challan of said payment was to be shown to the Registrar.

Abdul Tahir, I.T.P. for Appellant.

Nemo for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 11th April, 2002.

ORDER

SYED KABIRUL HASAN (JUDICIAL MEMBER). ‑‑‑These applications under section 134(6) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 for the grant of stay of demand for assessment years 2000‑2001 and 2001‑2002 amounting to Rs.329,409 and Rs.517,165 respectively have been filed by the applicant/assessee.

2. The brief facts are that the assessee is a contractor and the statement under section 143B declaring total receipts of Rs.392,940,862 and tax deducted @ 5% at Rs.1,647,043 for assessment year 2000‑2001 and the statement under section 143B declaring total receipts of Rs.51,719,098 and tax deducted @ 5% at Rs.2,585,980 were filed and accepted under section 59(1) of the Ordinance. The Assessing Officer, Circle 01, Sukkur, confronted the assessee that his aggregated receipts from various contracts are more than 30 million on which tax was deductible @ 6% according to para. CCC(i)(a), Part I of First Schedule to the Ordinance and there was shortfall oC1% tax. The Assessing Officer, therefore, created a demand of Rs.329,409 and Rs.517,165 for assessment years 2000‑2001 and 2001‑2002 respectively under section 52(A) of the Ordinance.

3. Mr. Abdul Tahir, learned A.R. of the applicant/assessee, has submitted that not a single contract of the assessee was more than 30 million. In view of this, the provision for deducting tax at 6% was not applicable. He has further submitted that the assessee has paid 15% of the demand and this fact has not been appreciated by learned CIT(A) and he did not grant the stay.

4. We have heard', Mr. Abdul Tahir, learned A.R. of the applicant/assessee and also perused the relevant record.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that a prima facie case is made out for grant of stay, yet this fact is also to be verified whether the assessee has paid 15% of the total demand and thereafter stay would be allowed till the hearing of the main appeal which is fixed on 22‑5‑2002 when the challan of payment of 15% is shown to the Registrar.

C.M.A./M.A.K./312/Tax(Trib.) Order accordingly.