AZAD JAMMU AND KASHMIR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

INLAND REVENUE MUZAFFARABAD

Appeal No: 27\19

Date of institution: 2.10.2024
Date of hearing: __.__.2024
Date of decision: __.__.2024

Shahid Mehmood Ali Traders Islam Garh, Mirpur

…APPELLANT
VERSUS
1. Commissioner Inland Revenue Appeals Mirpur.
2. Sardar Muhammad Riaz Khan DCIR Circle 16 Chakswari.
… RESPONDENTS
Appeal under section 131 of the Income Tax
Ordinance, 2001 against the order passed by the
Commissioner Inland Revenue (Appeals) Mirpur
dated 30.07.2019

For the appellant: Mr. Khalid Awan, Advocate.

For the respondents:

BEFORE:
Sheikh Rashid Majeed, Chairperson/Judicial Magistrate.
Shakeel Ahmed, Accountant Member.

JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed against the order dated

30.07.2019 passed by the Commissioner Inland Revenue

(Appeals), Mirpur (CIR) whereby the appeal filed by the

appellant-tax payer under section 129(1) of the Income Tax

Ordinance, 2001 (ITO) has been dismissed.

2. the brief facts of the case are that the Deputy

Commissioner In land Revenue DCIR had ordered the penalty

under section 182 of the ITO 2001. As per the order appellant
taxpayer, is running business with name Ali Traders, situated in

Islamgarh District Mirpur has failed to pay amount of WHT

which he is bound to pay legally. During the course of against the

appellant learned DCIR order the penalty against non payment of

@10% of payable WHT Rs 1,84,219. Against the order of

penalty appellant filed an appeal before the CIR (A) under

section 129(1) for abrogating the penalty. The learned CIR (A)

granted him relief to some extent and reduced the penalty from

1,84,219 to Rs 30,000.

3. Mr. Shahid Mehmood learned counsel for the

appellant taxpayer argued before the Appellate Tribunal that the

impugned penalty order dated 06.12.2018 passed by the Deputy

Commissioner Inland Revenue (DCIR) under section 182 and

order passed by CIR (A) dated 30.07.2019 under section 129A

are against the facts and circumstances of the case. He said that

learned CIR has not decided the case as per true spirit of law. The

counsel for taxpayer argued that even due to ailment of his father

and theft of cash, the learned DCIR did not give any opportunity

to furnish relevant documents and decided the case one sided.

Learned counsel contended that imposing huge penalty first and

maintaining partly order by learned CIR is mere a suppression by

institution, thus the impugned penalty order is liable to be

abrogated.