Background of the Appeal: Here the petitioner has a business of General Insurance. In the assessment year 1990-1991 it was assessed on an estimate income of taka 1,98,18,176,.00 against the income return of taka 1,65,75,17,00.The Deputy Commissioner Of Taxes (DCT) also disallowed the Jamuna Levy on amount of taka 13,18,045.00 holding that it was not an allowable expense against the interest and dividend income while grossing up the same withthe income. Being aggrieved by the order of the petitioner preffered an appeal before the Additional Appeal Commissioner Of Taxes(AACT). Who after hearing the parties allowed the appeal in part but maintained the order of the AACT which is relatable to the allowance of the Jamuna Levy. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid appellate order dated 25-2-92 the petitioner moved Appellate Tribunal in second appeal.
Issues: Whether Taxes Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the Jamuna Levy imposedpursuant to section 3 of the ordinance No. XLIII of 1985 in charge created on the income ofthe assesse?
Judgement: The Levy imposed by section 3 of the ordinance No. XLIII of 1985 did not create a charge on the income earning apparatus, rather this created an obligation on the assesse which could be discharged by an application of the income earned by the assessed.
Comments: Actually Jamnna Levy created by section 3 of the ordinance is not a charge on the income rather the income was applied to discharge its obligation created under the
ordinance and taking that view of the matter they maintained the order of the DCT by drawing analogy from section 49 of the ordinance as income tax at source which is deducted
pursuant to section 49 of the ordinance is taken for computation of the total income for tax purpose.