Section 6

Provision of section 6 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1984 is mandatory. The Deputy Commissioner of Taxes upon receipt of the information as to particulars of the persons concerned should have investigated the matter through proper channel by issuing notices upon the remitters following the provision of Section 6 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1984 but without complying with the requirement of Section 6 of the Ordinance, issuance of notices upon the remitters cannot be treated as in accordance with law. The Deputy Commissioner of Taxes without conducting any inquiry added the remittance quoting a wrong amount in the
account of the assesses applicant which proves that the authority did not inquire the matter in accordance with law and the entire process was arbitrary and on surmise—the decision of the Tribunal appears to have been passed without applying proper judicial mind.

And Chandra Paul Vs The Commissioner of Taxes 13 BLT (HCD)573


Re opening the assessment earlier accepted by the authority.

The provision in section 93 of the Income Tax J Ordinance is that when in finalizing the assessment certain fact or facts is/are escaped notice of the authority or in other words income which ought to have been disclosed by the assessee in his Income Tax return but he did not do so and that later on said nondisclosure comes to the notice to the Income Tax Authority and that having had that fact been before the Authority at the time of finalizing the assessment, the assessment would have been otherwise, then in that situation to avoid loss of revenue the provision of section 93 of the Income Tax Ordinance authorizes the
Income Tax authority to reopen the assessment which has been finalized earlier and thereupon finalize the assessment taking into the consideration the new facts.

Abdul Kader Master Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Taxes & Ors 15 BLT (AD)271


In taxation matter reference is to be made out of final decision/judgment passed by the Taxes Appellate Tribunal. Since in the instant case, the Appellate Tribunal rejected the appeal on the ground of limitation and the reference having not been made on point of limitation, the High Court Division rightly refused to answer the question raised.

Mrs. Rani Bilkis Banu Chowdhury Vs. The Commissioner of Taxes 15 BLT (AD)84

Section-160 Read with The Income Tax Act, 1922 Section-23(3)

The appellant was assessed under Section 23(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1922 for the accounting year ended on 30 June, 1981 and the assessment year 1981-82’. The Deputy Commissioner of Taxes, while making the said assessment treated a sum of
Tk 8,15,79,411.00 as a windfall profit in the hands of the assessee-appellant and added the same to its total income—Held: We are of the view that having regard to the principles enunciated by the Judicial Committee in the case of Raja Bejoy Singh Dudhuria (supra) and the Indian Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Sitaldas Tirathdas (and followed by the Kerala High Court (supra) with which we are in agreement, there can be no hesitation in holding in the facts of the case before us that the price differential or the windfall profit having been credited in favour of the BPC under a Govt. decision before it became an
income in the hands of the appellant, the principle of diversion of income by overriding title is fully attracted. The disputed amount never reached the appellant as its income. The obligation of the appellant was not to be discharged out of its own income but the amount was to be treated at its origin as income to the credit of the BPC.

Meghna Petroleum Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Taxes 6BLT (AD)-95

Section-160(1) Read with Income Tax Act, 1922 Section-42(3)

(a) The assessee company submitted its return of income for the assessment year 1978-79 claiming allowable expenses under different heads such as Head Office Telephone and Telegram expenses, travelling expenses, fees for plan approval, engineering
etc. expenses for essential coordinating service and area overhead charge. Deputy Commissioner of Taxes disallowed the claim against which the company preferred an appeal before the Appellate Joint Commissioner of Taxes, who affirmed the disallowance made by the Deputy Commissioner of Taxes on the ground that the assessee company having earned income in Bangladesh was not entitled to deduct their heads. The company, thereafter, preferred appeal before the Taxes Appellate Tribunal, Ctg. who while taking decision fell in the line the findings of the authority below. On reference it has been found that
expenses was not capital expenditure nor that they were personal or incidental to the business of the assessee. Business of the assessee company was unlike, ordinary business of a business house. In the instant case the expenditure incurred and reflected in the books of account maintained in the Head office at New York were incidental to carrying out of the business in Bangladesh. The assessee-company could not do the business in isolation in Bangladesh without receiving any effective advise and coordination from the Head office technical know-how. Tribunal did not advert its attention of the nature of the business activity of the company. Merely because the assessee has been declared a company under section 2 (5A) of the Act and is a unit of assessment it should not be considered that the expenses in question do not merit deduction in computing the total income of the assessee.

American Bureau of Shipping Chittagong Vs Commissioner of Taxes 2BLT (HCD)-173

(b) The account maintained in the Head office reflected the true statement of income and expenditure and the debit-note is a reliable basis for claiming deduction in computing total income of the assessee as the assessee maintains mercantile system of accounting.

American Bureau of Shipping Chittagong Vs Commissioner of Taxes 2BLT (HCD)-173

Section-173 read with Section —3

Whether the Commissioner of Taxes being not a party before the Tribunal had locus Standi to file the application under section 173 of the Income Tax Ordinance

The Appellate Tribunal may amend any order passed by it to correct any error apparent from the record either of its own motion or the matter being brought to its notice by any other Income Tax Authority —Commissioner of Taxes is included as one of the income tax authorities and as such we are of the view that the matter has been brought to the notice of the Tribunal by an authorised authority and as such there is no error in this regard.

Mr. Akbar Hussain Vs. Taxes Appellate Tribunal & Ors 15 BLT (AD)273

Income Tax Ordinance, 1994 Section-165 and 166 read with Emergency Power Rules, 2007 Rule-15

Held: we are of the view that failure to initiate proceeding for assessment or the pendency of the assessment proceeding cannot operate as a bar to the institution of any criminal prosecution for offences punishable under Chapter XXI of the Ordinance.

Govt. of Bangladesh & Ors Vs. Iqbal Hasan Mahmood 16 BLT (AD) 313.