VERIFICATION AS ON 11.08.
2020 OF AUDIT REPORT 2008-09 (DIRECT TAX)
IN RESPECT OF REGIONAL TAX OFFICE MULTAN, HELD AT LAHORE
S.# Audit Name of the Asstt: Amount as per Departmental reply
Para/Unit taxpayer Year audit
11 9.3.6 PA(WHT) 2007 104,537,000 Audit Authorities has taken 494 No. of cases for
2008 the Tax year 2007 and 419 No of cases for tax
year 2008 from the e-portal of FBR website but
name of the taxpayers were not pointed out for
Loss of
which required action u/s 182 alongwith default
revenue due to
surcharge has not been taken.
non levy of
02.10.2019
penalty Department had already charged and recovered
penalty u/s 182 against the defaulting units
wherever required for the same period.
06.03.2020
As the audit authorities has not provided list of
the cases therefore, case wise reconciliation
cannot be ascertained. Department had already
charged and recovered penalty u/s 182 against the
defaulting units wherever required for the same
period.
Therefore, para may please be settled.
06.07.2020
Contested as above. Furthermore, as per rule 73
of Income Tax Rules, 2002 cases i.e. individual,
AOP & FTN holder were not required to file
online return / withholding statements during the
tax years mentioned above. As per MPR
department had already charged and recovered
penalty u/s 182 against the defaulting units
wherever required for the same period. It is also
worth mentioning that
“ the Hon’ble Lahore High Court Multan
Bench, in its latest tax reference No.04 of 2019
held that statement u/s 165 could not be filed
within time and no loss of revenue is involved
therefore, penalty u/s 182 on late filing of
Audit Remarks DAC Directives
16.10.2018
RTO has contested that penalty u/s 182 has already been
charged and recovered in some cases, where it was due,
while in most of the case, the said chargeability was not due.
DAC directed the RTO to provide complete detail of these
cases to audit for verification and report final compliance by
23.10.2018.
DAC Directive dated 07.10.2019
RTO has contested that penalty u/s 182 has already been
charged and recovered in some cases, where it was due,
while in most of the case, the said chargeability was not due.
DAC reiterated its earlier directive dated 16.10.2018 and
directed the RTO to get its stance verified from Audit and
report final compliance by 09.10.2019.
DAC Directive dated 09.03.2020
RTO has contested that penalty u/s 182 has already been
charged and recovered in some cases, where it was due,
while in most of the case, the said chargeability was not due.
DAC reiterated its earlier directive dated 16.10.2018 and
directed the RTO to get its stance verified from Audit and
report final compliance within 30 days.
DAC Directive dated 10.07.2020
RTO is contested that penalty u/s 182 has already been
charged and recovered wherever it was leviable where in
other cases there was no loss of revenue involved and
penalty is not chargeable in view of Lahore High Court,
Multan Bench IV of 2019.
DAC directed the RTO to provide a summary of cases
alongwith decision of Lahore High Court and report final
compliance by 15.07.2020.
1
statement is not justify”
In going to above facts para may please be
settled.

14.07.2020
Contested in the light of High Court judgment
mentioned above.

10.08.2020 11.08.2020
Contested as Audit Authorities has taken 494 No. Matter pertain to non levy of
of cases for the Tax year 2007 and 419 No of penalty for non-filing of W.H.
cases for tax year 2008 from the e-portal of FBR Statement u/s 165. Honable
Lahore High Court has decided
website but name of the taxpayers were not
the penalty is not liaviable
pointed out against action u/s 182 was required. because no loss of revenue is
Department had already charged and recovered involved in non-submitting of
penalty against the defaulting units wherever the statement. Refers to DAC.
warranted and other cases there is no activity /
loss of revenue. Hence in the light of ratio settled
by the “Hon’ble Lahore High Court Multan
Bench, in its latest tax reference No.04 of 2019
held that statement u/s 165 could not be filed
within time and no loss of revenue is involved
therefore, penalty u/s 182 on late filing of
statement is not justify” .
It is requested that para may please be settled.