Presented at Shri Revenue Tribunal in Kathmandu

Appeal letter

Baglung District Baglung Na.Pa. Ward no. 4 located J. A. on behalf of V of Tata Projects Limited.
Dhanusha District Janakpur U.P.M.N.P. under the authority of Ward no. 4 years of residence 34 Ram
Babu Karna's......................................... ..........................................1

against

Mr. Middle Level Taxpayer's Office, Babarmahal, Kathmandu............................................1

Issue: Income Tax (A.Y. 2075/076)

The said opponent Mr. Middle Level Taxpayer Office, Babarmahal, Kathmandu. Issued in the case of
this appellant company for 2075/076. No. 772 dated 2080/02/30th, after receiving the revised tax
assessment order and the decision sheet issued in that regard, before Mr. Internal Revenue
Department to get it canceled because the grounds and reasons for determining the said tax are
contrary to the law and the valid principles of the law. Regarding the administrative review, the
decision made by Mr. Internal Revenue Department Lazimpat dated 2080/06/12 and received on
2080/10/22 should be appealed within 35 days from the date of receipt. , as we have been granted a
stay of 15 days according to Section 223 of 2074, we have appeared with an appeal letter within the
period of stay.

1. Since the facts of the dispute and the conduct of the decision during the administrative review will
be known from the relevant File, it has not been repeated. So requested to obtain the file.

2. We request as follows that the decision sheet by Internal Revenue Department to approve the
decision made by the opposing office is flawed.

Point of order no. 1 last year The expenses of this year. In relation to claims made in:

a. Revised tax assessment order issued by the opposition office, decision sheet and
administrative review decision point no. 1 in “Purchase of Rs. 3014925 from DeltaCore Pvt.
Ltd., Rs. 10372345 from Panchakanya Steel Pvt. Ltd., Rs. 4922932 from Shivam Cement Ltd.,
Rs. 292424 from Jai Hanuman Traders, totalling to Rs. 18602626 is related to FY 2074-75,
hence not deductible for FY 2075-76, according to section 21(1)(f) of the Income Tax Act,
2058.

b. In this regard, there is no dispute that the purchases made by the appellant company from
the said taxpayer are related to the regular business of the company and thus the expenses
incurred for earning income from the business are actual expenses. In the course of business
transactions, the purchase demand (Order) to be made towards the end of the financial year.
Even if the bills are issued in FY 2074-75, the work has been done in the next year and the
goods are received in current FY. Moreover, as the last years accounts are already closed on
Ashadh, the bills received after that can not be adjusted in last year hence, claimed in
current year.

c. Section 24 of the Income Tax Act, 2058 provides that expenditure should be accounted for
at the time the liability for payment is created. The appellant company has followed
accounting on accrual basis in the last fiscal year. The services has been received at the the
current FY hence, It has been accounted for and claimed in this year as it was received in.
 d. Section 101(1) of the Income Tax Act, 2058 provides that tax should be assessed on an
equitable basis. In the presented point, the expenses claimed by the appellant company are
the actual expenses incurred by the company and the tax office could not say otherwise in
the above case, only because of the complexity of the accounting in the above case. Since
the intention of the Income Tax Act is to recognize the actual expenses claimed and incurred
by the taxpayer, the tax assessment which is contrary to the intention of the Income Tax Act
is flawed, so the said tax assessment should be cancelled and the actual expenses should be
recognized.

Point of order no. 3 Regarding showing more purchases than actually made:

a. Revised tax assessment order issued by the opposition office, decision sheet and administrative
review decision point no. In 3 "this taxpayer Four S. Security Services Pvt. Ltd. Purchased with Rs.
40,56,235.00, the said taxpayer paid this taxpayer Rs. 38,26,278.00 as it was shown that this tax
payer dist. Four S. Security Services Pvt. Ltd. Purchase made with Rs. 2,29,957.00 was found to have
over-purchased and as the factual evidence to prove the said overstated amount could not be
submitted during the tax audit, the amount of purchase expenses to the extent that this taxpayer has
deducted the over-expenditure under section 13 of the Income Tax Act, 2058 (a ) and (b) as it is not
possible to say the expenses A. According to Section 21(1)(f) of the Act, it seems that the tax has
been determined as "expenses cannot be deducted".

b. In relation to this, the appellant company has procured services from Four S. Security Services Pvt.
Ltd. There is no dispute that the purchases taken are related to the regular business of the company
and thus the expenses incurred for the purpose of earning income from the business are actual
expenses. Section 13 of the Income Tax Act, 2058 states that in any income year, expenses incurred
by a person in earning income from business or investment must be deducted. As far as the sales
shown by the taxpayer are less than the purchases shown by this company, the issue of how much
business has been transacted between the two companies is not a matter to be determined based
on the accounting of one company, if a public company has shown less sales to this company, this
company claims more amount of expenses. It cannot even be assumed that it was done.

c. If the expenses claimed by the appellant company were claimed according to the invoice issued by
the seller, then the invoices, ledgers and other evidences proving the claimed expenses have been
submitted during the tax audit. In this way, if the evidence related to its business is submitted, how
the other company has declared the business is not within the knowledge of this company, then the
responsibility of the opposite office is to show which taxpayer's details are real in relation to the
differences in the business between the two sellers and buyers. In Section 14 of the Evidence Act,
2031, "Any matter regularly submitted or stated in an account, ledger, ....... or other document
regularly maintained in connection with any work, action or business, letter written in relation to
business or business, compensation, Chalani or any other details can be taken as evidence. In the
case that the appellant company has submitted objective proof documents such as invoices, ledgers,
invoices confirming the actual transactions with the taxpayers under the presented point, the
opposing office, which bears the responsibility of making a judicial decision, without examining the
submitted evidence, why the details and evidence submitted by this company are wrong. Based on
the statement prepared by other taxpayers without mentioning it in the decision, the tax assessment
which includes the amount that this company did not do business in the profit and profit is wrong.

d. "The burden of proving that it is taxable income is on the tax office or the tax officer" from the
honorable Supreme Court N. K. Pa. 2066, No. No. In 7730 the theory has been proved. Similarly,
N.K.P. 2079, no. In 10920, it is explained that "the burden of proving the validity of the above tax
return submitted by the taxpayer during the assessment of tax shall remain with the tax officer".
Appointed by the honorable court. From the theory itself, it is clear that the responsibility of the
opposing office is to verify the claim on an objective basis by ascertaining the issue of what kind of
goods and what kind of invoice has been purchased and claimed more expenses from the said
vendor companies. However, the opposition office has determined the tax to invalidate the actual
expenses shown by this company even though objective evidence has not been able to confirm
whether the statement under Schedule-13 submitted by the appellant company is wrong, or
whether the statement submitted by the taxpayer is correct. The tax assessment of the opposition
office has been flawed and has been unsuccessful.

Point of order no. 4 In relation to showing a lower purchase than the actual purchase:

a. Revised tax assessment order issued by the opposition office, decision sheet and administrative
review decision point no. 4 in “This taxpayer is Delta Core Pvt. Ltd. Purchased with Rs. 73,55,453.00,
the said taxpayer paid this taxpayer Rs. 73,88,961.00 as it was shown that this taxpayer sold Delta
Core Pvt. Ltd. Purchase made with Rs. 33,508.00 showed that he made low purchases and similarly,
this taxpayer said that he made purchases with Shrikrishna Gandaki Traders for Rs. 19,82,020.00, the
said taxpayer paid this taxpayer Rs. 20,04,910.00 was shown to have been sold by this taxpayer, but
in the purchase made from Shrikrishna Gandaki Traders, Rs. 22,890.00 showing that this taxpayer
made low purchases in the purchases made with the mentioned taxpayers totalling Rs. 56,398.00
was found to be understated and since the fact evidence proving the understated amount could not
be submitted during the tax audit, this taxpayer treated the understated purchase amount as having
sold it to another person or firm without including it in his business. Adding 3 percent to the price
increase shown in the financial statement of Rs. 58,090.00 this year. After maintaining the additional
sale of the said sale amount, the purchase cost is Rs. 56,398.00 The amount to be deducted for
expenses is Rs. 1,692.00 should be included in profits and gains as per Section 7(2)(b) of the Income
Tax Act, 2058.

b. In this regard, the appellant company, which conducts business in accordance with the prevailing
law, also maintains its regular business accounts in accordance with the prevailing law. I request that
the balance sheet, income statement, etc. prepared by this appellant company be verified by the
auditor appointed according to the law. The expenses claimed by the company are claimed according
to the invoices issued by the vendors and service providers. It is not possible to claim an amount
more or less than the said amount. The amounts claimed under this point are claimed according to
the invoice issued by the seller. The issue of how much business has transpired between the two
companies is not a matter to be determined based on the accounting of one of the companies, so it
cannot be assumed that this company has purchased more than that amount based on the fact that
a certain company has shown more sales to this company.

c. In order to confirm this, the appellant company has the burden of proving the actual transaction,
including which invoice the appellant company has shown the said short purchase, by what means
this company has given the payment of the excess amount, etc. This appellant company presented
All the documents to confirm the tax are submitted at the time of tax audit. In this way, when the
evidence related to its business is presented, how the other company disclosed the business is not
within the knowledge of this company, if there is a difference in the business between the two sellers
and the buyer, it is the responsibility of the opposite office to show which taxpayer's details are real.

d. "The burden of proving that it is taxable income is on the tax office or the tax officer" from the
honorable Supreme Court N. K. Pa. 2066, No. No. In 7730 the theory has been proved. Similarly,
N.K.P. 2079, no. In 10920, it is explained that "the burden of proving the validity of the above tax
return submitted by the taxpayer during the assessment of tax shall remain with the tax officer".
Appointed by the honorable court. From the theory itself, it is clear that the responsibility of the
opposing office is to verify the claim on an objective basis by ascertaining what kind of goods the
appellant company has purchased more from the seller companies and for which invoice, how the
price of the excess purchase amount has been paid by this company. . However, the opposition office
has not been able to confirm with objective evidence whether the statement under schedule-13
submitted by this company is wrong, or whether the statement submitted by the taxpayer is correct,
so the tax assessment of the opposition office is flawed.

e. In Section 14 of the Evidence Act, 2031, "Accounts, books, etc. regularly maintained in connection
with any work, action or business, any matter regularly submitted or reported in other sources,
letters written in relation to transactions or business, compensation, Chalani or any other details can
be taken as evidence. When the appellant company has submitted objective evidence documents
such as invoices, ledgers, bank statements confirming the actual transaction with the seller under the
above point, the opposing office, which bears the responsibility of making a judicial decision, has
submitted the evidence submitted by this company without examining the submitted evidence.
Without mentioning in the decision why the details and proofs are wrong, the tax assessment which
is included in the profits and gains of the company, which has not been purchased by this company,
is wrong.

f. Section 2 of the Income Tax Act, 2058 defines income as the income received by a person from
employment, business, investment or windfall and the term also refers to the total amount of such
income calculated in accordance with this Act. A. of income. The definition seems to define only the
actual earnings received by a taxpayer as income, while it is also clear that tax cannot be levied only
on the basis of estimates. The income statements and accounting statements prepared annually by
this appellant company have been prepared by an approved auditor in accordance with the
prevailing law. Even though the said taxpayers showed more sales to this company, this company did
not have any more transactions with the said companies than this company showed and in the
situation where the opponent could not even confirm the said excess purchase, it is assumed that
this company sold the amount of the alleged excess purchase to some other person based on the
assumption based on the lack of objective evidence. By giving false recognition that the said amount
has been earned by this company, the tax assessment made by maintaining the fictitious income for
the amount not earned by the company has been wrong.

Point of order no. 5 In relation to the difference in the amount payable entered by the taxpayer:

a. Revised tax assessment order issued by the opposition office, decision sheet and
administrative review decision point no. 5 in "This taxpayer has ordered Construction Pvt.
Ltd. The amount to be taken is Rs. 77,59,710.00 for entering the said order Construction Pvt.
Ltd. The amount to be collected from this taxpayer is Rs. 37,48,104.00 while Rs. 40,11,604.00
is found to be different in the amount to be taken, similarly, this taxpayer Four S. Security
Services Pvt. Ltd. The amount to be taken is Rs. 12,168.00 for entering the district. Four S.
Security Services Pvt. Ltd. The amount to be collected from this taxpayer is Rs. 65,353.00
while entering Rs. 53,185.00 was found to be different in the amount to be taken, similarly,
this taxpayer Panchakanya Steel Pvt. Ltd. The amount to be taken is Rs. 1,96,84,194.00 for
entering the said Panchakanya Steel Pvt. Ltd. The amount to be collected from this taxpayer
is Rs. 1,59,07,367.00 while Rs. 37,76,827.00 was found to be different in the amount that
should be taken, similarly, this taxpayer Delta Core Pvt. Ltd. The amount to be taken is Rs. For
entering 1.00 Delta Core Pvt. Ltd. The amount to be collected from this taxpayer is Rs.
6,08,357.00 while Rs. 6,08,356.00 was found to be different in the amount to be taken,
similarly, this taxpayer said that the amount to be taken from Nepal Electricity Authority is
Rs. 11,69,46,208.00 as the amount to be collected by the said Nepal Electricity Authority
from this taxpayer is Rs. 12,37,70,026.00 while Rs. 68,23,818.00 is found to be different in
the amount to be taken and this taxpayer Shivam Cement Pvt. Ltd. The amount to be taken is
Rs. 1,52,11,868.00 for entering the said Shivam Cement Pvt. Ltd. The amount to be collected
from this taxpayer is Rs. 1,50,78,583.00 while Rs. 1,33,285.00 showing the difference in the
amount to be taken with the above mentioned taxpayers, the total amount to be taken is Rs.
1,54,07,075.00 amount was found to be different and the fact to prove the said difference
amount otherwise could not be submitted during the tax audit, so the said difference
amount is considered as property/liability according to section 39 and section 40 of the
Income Tax Act, 2058. According to Section 7(2)(c) of the Act, it appears that the tax has
been determined as "must be included in profits and gains".
b. In this regard, the appellant company, which conducts business in accordance with the
prevailing law, also maintains its regular business accounts in accordance with the prevailing
law. I request that the balance sheet, income statement, etc. prepared by this appellant
company be verified by the auditor appointed according to the law. The expenses claimed by
this appellant company are claimed according to the invoices issued by the vendors and
service providers, while the amounts to be received are also entered by issuing the invoices
according to the law. It is not possible to claim that more or less amount is due. The amounts
claimed under this point are claimed as per the issued invoice. The issue of how much
business has been transacted between the two companies is not a matter to be determined
based on the accounts of one of the companies, so it cannot be assumed that this company
has borne the responsibility of the excess amount just based on the fact that some company
shows that it has taken more from this company.
c. In order to confirm this, the appellant company has the burden of proving the real
transaction, including the invoices for which the excess purchase and sale has been made,
the means by which this company has given or received the excess amount of payment, etc.
In case of administrative review decision by Mr. Internal Revenue Department, it is the
responsibility of the taxpayer to confirm the transaction with the supplier firm from which he
buys or sells the goods. . All the documents to confirm the tax are submitted at the time of
tax audit. In this way, when the evidence related to its business is presented, how the other
company disclosed the business is not within the knowledge of this company, if there is a
difference in the business between the two sellers and the buyer, it is the responsibility of
the opposite office to show which taxpayer's details are real.
d. "The burden of proving that it is taxable income is on the tax office or tax officer" from the
honorable Supreme Court N. K. Pa. 2066, No. No. In 7730 the theory has been proved.
Similarly, N.K.P. 2079, no. In 10920, it is explained that "the burden of proving the validity of
the above tax return submitted by the taxpayer during the assessment of tax shall remain
with the tax officer". Appointed by the honorable court. From the theory itself, it is clear that
it is the responsibility of the opposition office to verify this claim on an objective basis by
ascertaining the issue of what kind of goods has been purchased from the seller companies
and for what invoice. However, the opposition office has not been able to confirm with
objective evidence whether the statement under schedule-13 submitted by this company is
wrong, or whether the statement submitted by the taxpayer is correct, so the tax assessment
of the opposition office is flawed.
e. In Section 14 of the Evidence Act, 2031, "Accounts, books, etc. regularly maintained in
connection with any work, action or business, any matter regularly submitted or reported in
other sources, letters written in relation to transactions or business, compensation, Chalani
or any other details can be taken as evidence. The appellant company has submitted
objective proof documents such as invoice, ledger, payment of the invoice amount and
received bank statement confirming the actual transaction with the taxpayer under this
point, and the opposing office, which bears the responsibility of making a judicial decision,
has not examined the submitted evidence. Without mentioning in the decision why the
submitted details and evidence are wrong, the tax assessment which is included in the
profits and gains of this company based on the details prepared by other taxpayers is wrong.
f. Section 2 of the Income Tax Act, 2058 defines income as the income received by a person
from employment, business, investment or windfall and the term also refers to the total
amount of such income calculated in accordance with this Act. A. of income. The definition
seems to define only the actual earnings received by a taxpayer as income, while it is also
clear that tax cannot be levied only on the basis of estimates. The income statements and
accounting statements prepared annually by this company have been prepared by an
approved auditor in accordance with prevailing laws. Although the said taxpayers have
shown that they have taken/give more than this company, this company has not done any
more business with the said companies than this company has shown and in the situation
where the opponent has not even confirmed the excess amount, the responsibility of the
amount shown in the alleged excess taking/giving is assumed to be objectively assumed by
this company based on the assumption. In the absence of evidence, the company falsely
claimed that the said amount was earned by this company, and the tax assessment made by
maintaining a fictitious income for the amount not earned by the company is wrong.

Point of order no. 6 Regarding the amount entered by the taxpayer in excess of the amount
actually purchased:
a. Revised tax assessment order issued by the opposition office, decision sheet and
administrative review decision point no. 6 in "This taxpayer has this A.Y. Ma Ama
Dblam/Royal Construction J. From Rs. 34,81,529.00 worth of purchases, the said taxpayer
entered the VAT Returns Details of the Internal Revenue Department's ITS System this year.
Taxable sales in Rs. As it is seen that the VAT return has been submitted mentioning 0, this
tax payer has submitted Ama Dblam/Royal Construction J. Bhi than the sales amount of Rs.
34,81,529.00 more than the expenses have been deducted, so the excess amount cannot be
said to be an expense according to Section 13 and 15 of the Income Tax Act, 2058. According
to Section 21(1)(f) of the Act, it seems that the tax has been determined as "expenses cannot
be deducted".
b. In relation to this, the appellant company Ama Dblam/Royal Construction J. There is no
dispute about the fact that the purchases taken with V are related to the regular business of
the company and thus the expenses incurred for the purpose of earning income from the
business are actual expenses. Section 13 of the Income Tax Act, 2058 states that expenses
incurred by a person in earning income from business or investment in any income year must
be deducted. As far as the sales shown by the taxpayer are less than the purchases shown by
this company, the issue of how much business has been transacted between the two
companies is not a matter to be determined based on the accounting of one company alone,
if a public company shows less sales to this company, this company claims more amount of
expenses. It cannot even be assumed that it was done.
c. If the expenses claimed by the appellant company were claimed according to the invoice
issued by the seller, then the invoices, ledgers and other evidences proving the claimed
expenses have been submitted during the tax audit. In this way, when the evidence related
to its business is presented, how the other company disclosed the business is not within the
knowledge of this company, if there is a difference in the business between the two sellers
and the buyer, it is the responsibility of the opposite office to show which taxpayer's details
are real. In Section 14 of the Evidence Act, 2031, "Accounts, books, etc. regularly maintained
in connection with any work, action or business, any matter regularly submitted or reported
in other sources, letters written in relation to transactions or business, compensation,
Chalani or any other details can be taken as evidence. In the event that this company has
submitted objective proof documents such as invoices, ledgers, invoices, which confirm the
actual transactions with the taxpayers under the presented point, the opposing office, which
bears the responsibility of making a judicial decision, has decided that the details and
evidence submitted by this company are wrong without examining the submitted evidence.
Without mentioning it, the tax assessment which invalidated the actual expenses related to
the business done by this company based only on the statement prepared by other taxpayers
is flawed.
d. "The burden of proving that it is taxable income is on the tax office or the tax officer" from
the honorable Supreme Court N. K. Pa. 2066, No. No. In 7730 the theory has been proved.
Similarly, N.K.P. 2079, no. In 10920, it is explained that "the burden of proving the validity of
the above tax return submitted by the taxpayer during the assessment of tax shall remain
with the tax officer". Appointed by the honorable court. From the theory itself, it is clear that
the responsibility of the opposing office is to verify the claim on an objective basis by
ascertaining the issue that this company has purchased more goods and claimed more
expenses from the seller companies. However, the opposing office has determined the tax to
invalidate the actual expenses shown by this company even though objective evidence has
not been able to confirm whether the information submitted by this company under
Schedule-13 is wrong or whether the information submitted by the taxpayer is correct. The
office's tax assessment is flawed.

Point of order no. 7 Regarding the fee under Section 120(a) and Section 119A of the Income
Tax Act, 2058:
a. Revised tax assessment order issued by the opposition office, decision sheet and
administrative review decision point no. In 7, "This taxpayer has not entered all the details of
the purchase/sale of more than 1 lakh and the amount to be received/received in Schedule-
13 in the E-Return System of the Internal Revenue Department. Section of the Income Tax
Act, 2058 According to 119A Rs. 10,000 fee should be demanded.
b. In Section 120 of the Income Tax Act, 2058, it is provided that "filing of false and
misleading returns shall be charged". Nowhere in the revised tax assessment order, the
decision sheet issued in relation to it, the decision of the administrative review, the
opposition office has claimed that the appellant company has filed false and misleading
information. Section 120(a) of the Income Tax Act, 2058 provides that "fifty percent of the
reduced tax amount will be levied if false or misleading information is filed, not knowingly or
negligently". As this appellant company has not filed any false or misleading statement in the
opposite office, it does not appear that there is any legal condition for levying charges under
Section 120(a).
c. In relation to this, the appellant company this year. I would like to request that the
taxpayer has entered the correct details of all transactions in Schedule 13 during the tax
audit of the business. The opposition office said that the company has not entered the
correct details of the transactions in Schedule 13. In Section 119A of the Income Tax Act,
2058, there is a provision that "persons who do not comply with any provision of the rules
made under this Act shall be charged a fee of five thousand rupees to twenty five thousand
rupees". As this company has complied with all the rules made under this Act, the opposition
office said that it has not fully complied with the Income Tax Act and Rs. 10,000 be set aside
as being erroneous.
3. Therefore, on the basis of the above considered facts, law and the valid theory
propounded by the court, the revised tax assessment order, the decision sheet and the
administrative order to invalidate the expenses according to the law claimed by this taxpayer
and to include the transactions not from this appellant company in the company's income
are considered as income. As the review order is flawed, it should be quashed and justice
should be done.
4. A.Y. Undisputed tax in 2075/076 Rs. 2,63,479.00 as declared by this taxpayer as an advance
of Rs. 90,34,214.00 while Rs. 87,70,735.00 seems to have filed more. The said A.V. In the case
of this taxpayer, the disputed tax is Rs. 81,33,342.00 for the registration of the administrative
review, the amount of one quarter of the disputed tax will be Rs. 20,33,335.50 to be
deposited in the bank as a bond, this taxpayer has to advance Rs. 87,70,735.00 has already
been filed, there is no condition to file additional bond amount during the administrative
review and for the purpose of filing an appeal in the Honorable Revenue Tribunal, the
additional one-fourth amount of the disputed tax will be Rs. 20,34,000.00 to be filed while
Rs. 20,34,000.00 bank voucher copy submitted with this application and present to register
the appeal letter.

5. The present appeal falls within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal under Section 116(1) of the
Income Tax Act, 2058.
6. Attached copies of documents and evidence:
a. Revised Tax Assessment Order dated 2080/02/30
b. Decision sheet issued by Mr. Internal Revenue Office dated 2080/02/30
c. Decision sheet dated 2080/06/12 issued by Mr. Internal Revenue Department
d. Compensation for understanding the letter
e. Bank Voucher
f. Authority
is. in Waresna
7. The information written in it is true, if it is found to be a lie, the money will be paid
according to the law.
the appellant
He or Rambabu Karna

In this regard, every day of the month of 2080