VS, 2009 PTD-INCOME-TAX-APPELLATE-TRIBUNAL-PAKISTAN 1313 (2009)

Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)---

----Ss. 221 & 128(5)---Rectification of mistake'--Bifurcation of payment of work, supplies and transportation---First Appellate Authority directed the Taxation Officer to rectify the orders passed in the light of revised certificate and issue the refund if found that deductions of tax were made in excess after verification, as the assessee had filed the revised statement after receipt of correct certificate issued by the Executive Engineer who had bifurcated the payment of work, supplies and transportation---Rectification application was filed by the assessee before the Taxation Officer but he had rejected the same without getting the certificate reconfirmed from the issuing authority---First Appellate Authority had rightly held that this was a mistake of facts that was rectifiable according to law---Orders of First Appellate Authority was upheld and the appeals filed by the Department were dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal.

Ahmed Saeed Siddiqui, D.R. for Appellant.

Abdul Tahir Ansari, ITP for Respondent.

ORDER

Through these twp appeals, the appellant department has objected to the consolidated impugned order of the learned CIT(A), dated 6-3-2007 for the assessment years 1996-97 to 2001-2002 and tax year, 2004 to the extent of assessment year, 2001-2002 and tax year, 2004 on the following common grounds:---

"(2) That as per facts and circumstances of the case the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Hyderabad was not justified to issue directions to the Taxation Officer for rectification of order in the light of revised certificate and issue refund.

(3) That the taxpayer has received payment on account of Civil contracts for which uniform rates on deduction have been prescribed under the law.

(4) That the withholding authority has deducted the tax on account of contracts at uniform rate. His revised certificate bifurcating the single/composite contract and issuance of certificate is not in accordance with law and the nature of business of the taxpayer.

(5) That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Hyderabad admitted documentary material, evidence which was not produced before the Taxation Officer as required under section 128(5) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001."

2. We have heard the learned representatives of the two sides and have also perused the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) and the order of the Taxation Officer.

3. We have found that the learned CIT(A) has directed the Taxation Officer to rectify the orders passed for these two years in the light of the revised certificate and issue the refund if found that the deductions of tax were made in excess after verification, as the assessee has filed the revised statement after receipts of correct certificate issued by the Executive Engineer who has bifurcated the payment of work, supplies and transportation. The rectification application was filed by the assessee before the Taxation Officer but he has rejected the same without re-confirming the certificate from the issuing authority. We are of the view that the learned CIT(A) has rightly held that this is a mistake of facts that we rectifiable according to law.

4. Keeping in view these facts and circumstances, we find no war rant for interference in the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) which is upheld and both the appeals filed by the Department are dismissed.

C.M.A./65/Tax (Trib.)Appeal dismissed.