The Islamabad High Court (IHC) has rejected the legal stance of Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue (ATIR) and issued notice to famous anchorperson Meher Bokhari in an alleged income tax concealment case.
In this regard, the IHC has issued an order (I.T.R No.06 of 2025) for Commissioner Inland Revenue Vs. anchorperson.
Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue has given the decision in favor of Bokhari, but the FBR challenged the matter before the IHC which issued notice to the anchorperson. IHC framed three questions of law for determination. The IHC has issued notices to the anchorperson, seeking her response to the FBR’s allegations.
The lawyer for the applicant (FBR) inter alia contends that the anchorperson is a service provider and on receipt of the consideration for the services, the certain amount is to be deducted as withholding tax under section 153(1)(b) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.
The counsel contended that for the tax year 2017 taxpayer filed the return wherein the receipts from the services provided were treated as income and as a final tax liability. It was contended that a show-cause notice was issued on 20.04.2023, which culminated in the order-in-original, and an appeal filed there against was decided on 11.12.2023, which sustained the order-in-original.
In view of the submissions made by counsel, the IHC is satisfied that the following questions of law arise in the facts and circumstances:
- Whether the ATIR erred by failing to consider that the taxpayer declared her entire ‘receipts from services’ as ‘income from services’ in her wealth statement, used this income/inflow to reconcile the net asset accretions and personal expenses and thereby failed to substantiate the existence of any business expenses to derive income from services?
- Whether the ATIR erred by failing to appreciate that the deemed assessment order was rightly amended under Section 122(5A) of the Ordinance as it was both erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue?
- Whether the ATIR erred by failing to recognize that in the absence of disclosed expenses, the assessing officer’s treatment of receipts as income was both lawful and appropriate?
The lawyer also contended that the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue modified the orders by declaring that the receipts could not have been taken as income for tax liability.
