Office of Appellate Tax Commissioner
Appellate Range- 3
Tax Appeal Zone- 1, Dhaka.
Date of order: 30/11/2017 AD
Income Tax Appeal Letter: 362/ Sha- 191/Ka:A:-9/2016-2017
Submitted on dated 20/06/2017 AD as because
of the order of Mr Md. Rashed Khan, Deputy Tax Commissioner .
1.
Tax Year: 2013-2014
2.
Name of partner if claimed
for registration or applied for renew registration or registration of
registered firm and name of applicant: Mrs Nadia S Hossain Khan, T.I.N:
885924578105/Sha-191, Husband- Jabir Mohammad Khan, House No- 32, Garib- e-
Newaz, Avenue, Sector- 13, Uttara, Dhaka.
3.
Fixed income: Taka
3,83,50,000/-
4.
Claimed tax additional:
Taka 1,03,57,500/-
5.
Tax has been specified as
per the section: 82BB(1)/82BB(3)/84/156/83(2)
Date of hearing: 30/10/2017 AD
Present in favor of applicant: Mr A. K. M
Azizur Rahman, Advocate
Present in favor of the department: No one
else.
Reason of the decision and order of the
appeal: To be seen on 2nd page.
[No SOB(B)-109/75-1122, Date: 04/12/1981 AD
Ba:Sha:Mu:-98/99-18016 F-3,00,000 Copies,
(C-20) 2000.
Page No- 2
Income Tax Appeal Letter:
362/Sha-191/Ka:Aa:-9/2016-2017
Specialist deputy tax commissioner, tax
circle- 9, Dhaka the date is specified for hearing on dated 30/10/2017 AD based
on the ruled notice for hearing of the appeal case submitted against the order
of resolved tax specified as per section 82 BB(1)/82BB(3)/84/156/83(2) for the
tax year 2013-2014 AD. In hearing of mentioned appeal tax payer of powered
representative Mr A. K. M Azizur Rahman, advocate has been presented. He as
presenting in the hearing the submitted appeal case regarding the objections
has given his statement. His statement is heard and based on the merit of the
case as per income tax law and regulation is has been as follows:
Regarding to follow terms and conditions as
per section 153 (3) or acknowledged debt payment of section 74:
As is seen in observation of the file that,
in the tax year of appeal 2013-2014 the appeal case in the office as has filled
up the terms mentioned as is mentioned the income tax appeal letter no-
20/sha-191/ka:a:-9/2016-2017, has been set aside/ resolved as received by dated
29/12/2016 AD of the order. So no comment is made here as per section 153(3) in
case of the discussed appeal.
Regarding to follow terms as per section
154(1):
200?- taka has been deposited as for appeal
fee in Sonali bank on ated 13/06/2017 AD in specified code no- 1-1143-0001-1876
for the tax year 2013-2014 AD. The chalan no of its is 127. Therefore in the
tax year of 2013-2014 AD in case of the submitted appeal case as per section
154(1) has been followed the terms and conditions as is counted.
Regarding following terms as per section
154 (2): The appeal is made beyond the limitation of regulated time in the tax
year 2013-2014 deputy commissioner IT- 59 has made comment . As is seen as per
records of the file deputy tax commissioner in the considered at year 2013-2014
as resolving the case on dated 12/02/2017 AD as making resolved has been given
signature in tax specification order. There has been ruled through 88 IT- 57
and IT-15, 30 to the tax payer of tax specification document in the margin of
order letter (IT- 39) of the tax year 2013- 2014 AD as has been mentioned. In
favor of ruled tax specification documents IT- 57 is existed. There has not
found any relevance of the existing signatures in related records of the file
with the signature of mentioned IT- 57 receiver. In hearing of the appeal tax
payer representative has informed that, he or tax payer has not found any tax
specification documents. There is proved in the mentioned situation that, tax
specification documents to the tax payer of income tax ordinance 1984 in
section 178 as per the regulation has not been ruled appropriately. In that
situation, tax payer as withdrawn certified copy of the documents of the
specified tax on dated 15/05/2017 AD by the tax payer: the appeal is made on
dated 20/06/2017 AD. The representative of the tax payer has informed they has
become failed to make appeal in appropriate time as tax order and claim letter
have not found on time. Later on dated 15/05/2017 AD after withdrawing
certified copy within 45 days has been applied. He applied to count the appeal
within the time limit. As per his application the appeal case 154(3) based on
the power within the time limit has been counted as submitted. As a result, the
term of section 154 (2) is fulfilled. In that situation, the application of
appeal is received for hearing.
Tax year: 2013-2014 AD
Objection No- 1: “The order of income tax
specification is ruled as per section 82BB(1)/82BB(3)/84/156/83(2) as survey is
not made appropriately of the notices ruled of specialist deputy tax
commissioner which is cancellable for the sake of right justice.”
Continued to the Page No- 3
Page No- 3
Income tax appeal letter:
362/sha-191/ka:a:-9/2016-2017
Decision and
Observation: The objection is traditional and general: There has raised
objection regarding any specific subject. There has not been commented as
because of the objection is complete.
Objection No- 2: “Shown
business income of the tax payer by the learned deputy tax commissioner is taka
2,55,000/- disregarding that the business is specified taka 3,50,000/- which is
cancellable as per the right justice.”
Decision and
Observation: The records in the file is observed and verified as per the
objection of the tax payer. As is seen in observation of the tax specification
order that the sales has been shown 25,50,000/- taka in the business sector of
various goods of the tax payer in the appealed tax and neat income is taka
2,55,000/-. In support of the shown sales statement any prove of information as
not made possible to present/ submit and shown sales are proved less in the
account book of the business of the tax payer deputy tax commissioner in absent
of the account books yearly sales have been calculated of taka 35,00,000/- and
calculated sales as per percentage of 15% as is imposed GP from its expenditure
approving as 1/3 proportionate in the mentioned sector the net income
3,50,000/- taka has been specified.
At the time of hearing
the tax payer powered representative becoming present against the mentioned
activities informed objection and or the increase decrease of the specified expenditure
has been claimed strongly. Speech of the representative, tax specification
order and record of the file etc in overall consideration of deputy tax
commissioner the specified sales as not proved more therefore remained existence.
Objection No- 3: The
learned deputy tax commissioner as shown FDR of taka 3,80,00,000/- (Three Crore
Eighty Lakhs) as deposited in the bank as is existed as per section 19(1)33D of
1984 as un explained income adding as income taka 3,80,00,000/= (Three Corore
Eighty Lakhs) taka the income tax specification order has been ruled which is
cancellable for the sake of right justice.
There is mentioned
that, mentioned taka in the previous tax year was shown in the asset
description. Mentioned taka in the tax year 2013- 2014 as FDR is invested in
the bank, deputy tax commissioner of the mentioned invested taka as income of
un explained there has opportunity to add as income.
Decision and
observation: Records in the file based on the objection of the tax payer has
been observed and verified. As is seen in observation of the order of tax
specification, the appealed tax in the tax year the tax payer and debt
description in 4 no column in saving certificate/ union board as for investment
as shown in B/F of taka 3,80,00,000/-. In support of the shown investment the
appropriate prove letter and as satisfactory as not become able to submit any
explanation it is as disregarding as per the section 19 (1)/ 33D of 1984 if
deputy ta commissioner income tax ordinance counting other sources of income
has been added with the total income.
At the time of hearing
the appeal the powered representative presenting against the mentioned
activities and has claimed that, from the tax payer in support of the shown
investment the bank statement description and proves as is existed in
verification of the prove of the deputy tax commissioner the tax payer has not
been given to support his his own favor illegally and reasonably as per section
19(1)/ 33D in solely sources of other income have been added with the total
income as counted. In verification of the level of circle of the representative
the instruction has been wished in support of the own favor. Based on the
objection recorded in the files has been seen in consideration and observation.
At the level of hearing appeal the powered representative of the tax payer a
bank statement from HSBC has been submitted.
Continued to the Page No- 4
Page No- 4
Income Tax Appeal Letter: 362/sha-191/ka:a:-9/2016-2017
There is seen in observation of the submitted
bank statement description of HSBC that there is mentioned the amount of taka
14,28,67,052/- in total in the HSBC Account No- 001.039957-102 of the bank on
dated 26/05/2013 AD in the joint names of tax payer’s father Alhaz Hossen and
Mrs Nadia Saila Hossen. In the mentioned joint account of taka 14,28,67,052/-
among them Mrs Nadia Saila Hossen has 3,80,00,000/- taka the representative has
informed. Speech of the representative, tax specification order, record of the
file and submitted bank account description etc in overall consideration giving
opportunity to hear again to the tax payer as receiving the explanation proves/
bank account description for taking legal activities the deputy commissioner
has been instructed.
Objection No- 4: “The income tax order has
been ruled specifying taka 8,82,200/= in total disregarding taka 2,40,000/= as
shown family expenditure by the learned deputy tax commissioner which is cancellable
for the sake of right justice.”
Decision and observation: Shown expenditure
by the learned assistant tax commissioner tax payer of taka 2,40,000/- as
disregarding of the deputy tax commissioner tax payer in social status,
expenditure as per the lifestyle standard as mentioning in sector wise of total
family expenditure has been specified of taka 8,82,200/-. At the time of
hearing tax payer powered representative informed that the deputy tax
commissioner illogically and un lawfully shown family expenditure as
disregarding in more proportionate family expenditure has been specified
commenting regarding that: shown family expenditure is claimed to obey
forcefully. Based on the objection as is seen in specified family expenditure
in observation and verification, Tax payer powered representative in the level
of hearing appeal British Citizen the tax payer is lived and submitted a
photocopy of passport. Submitted photocopy of passport is saved in the file. As
per standard of the lifestyle, social status of the tax payer expenditure etc
as discussing by the deputy tax commissioner based on the sector wise in some
of the sectors the family expenditure is proved somewhat more in the family
expenditure the personal maintenance is specified 2,00,000/- in the place of
3,50,000/- as is instructed. As the tax payer lived in the abroad and he has no
any vehicle in IT- 10B of income tax return; so expenditure related to vehicle
use is specified 1,00,000/- taka of commute in place of 2,00,000/- instruction
is given to be specified. The instruction to make specified of taka 2,00,000/-
in the place of 2,50,000/- as for other special expenditure including 2 Eid
festivals. Except the mentioned instruction deputy tax commissioner specified
other sector of expenditures with family expenditure as specified not proved
more therefore remains exist.
At the time of hearing the appeal no other
objection has been raised. So, the appeal is resolved according to the
mentioned above.
Sd/ Illegible
(Seal)
Sd/ Illegible
30/11/2017 AD
(Md. Jehad Uddin)
Appellate Joint Tax Commissioner
Appellate Range- 3
Tax Appeal Zone- 1, Dhaka
