18/03/2026
Important
Comparison: Section 122(5) vs 122(5A) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001
Key Distinction (Conceptual)
• Section 122(5) → “Hear first, then amend”
• Section 122(5A) → “Amend first (after audit), hear later (in appeal)”
________________________________________
Practical Insight
• 122(5) is more taxpayer-friendly (due process before amendment).
• 122(5A) is more department-driven (used widely after audits for quick amendments).
________________________________________
Relevant case law distinguishing both sections;
Here are important judicial precedents that clearly distinguish Section 122(5) and Section 122(5A) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, along with their legal principles:
________________________________________
Key Case Law Distinguishing Section 122(5) vs 122(5A)
1. CIR vs Sajid Hussain Gondal (LHC, 2026)
(Most recent and authoritative judgment)
Principle laid down:
• Section 122(5) → applies where:
o There is audit or definite information
o Income has escaped assessment or is under-assessed
• Section 122(5A) → applies where:
o Order is erroneous AND prejudicial to revenue
o It is a revisional power, not investigative
Important ruling:
• 122(5A) cannot be used for fishing inquiries
• Mere discrepancies or suspicion are not sufficient
“Revisional jurisdiction is not a license for roving inquiries”
________________________________________
2. ITR No. 10 of 2024 (LHC Rawalpindi Bench, 2026)
Key distinction:
• 122(5A) is:
o Reificatory / revisional
o Requires twin conditions:
1. Order is erroneous
2. Prejudicial to revenue
• If matter requires:
o Verification
o Investigation
o Expense scrutiny
Then correct provision = 122(5), NOT 122(5A)
________________________________________
3. M/s Meezan Bank Ltd / Jaffar Brothers (ATIR Karachi)
Principle:
• Section 122(5A):
o Cannot be used for unlimited enquiries
o Fishing & roving inquiries are illegal
Reinforces that 122(5A) is not an investigative provision
________________________________________
4. FTO Decision (2013 – Business Recorder reported case)
Principle:
• Section 122(5A):
o Allows multiple amendments
o Especially in cases of concealment
Shows wider revisional power, but still subject to legal limits
________________________________________5. Earlier Jurisprudence Relied Upon (as cited in LHC 2026 case)
Courts have consistently followed earlier cases such as:
• CIR vs Muhammad Iqbal Rind & Sons (2022 PTD 1411)
• MCB Bank Ltd (2021 PTD 1367)
• Honda Atlas Cars Pakistan Ltd (2021 PTD 1806)
• Caretex (2013 PTD 1536)
• Glaxo Laboratories (1992 PTD 932)
Combined Principle:
• 122(5A) is not a substitute for audit
• Requires clear, patent error on record
• Must show actual prejudice to revenue, not hypothetical loss
________________________________________
Practical Litigation Insight
Courts in Pakistan have now clearly drawn a boundary:
• If the issue requires investigation, reconciliation, or probing ➡️ Use Section 122(5)
• If the issue is apparent error on record causing revenue loss ➡️ Use Section 122(5A)
