2011 PLP (Trib (PTD)
Messrs RAKHSHANI BUILDERS, QUETTA Versus CIR (APPEALS), HYDERABAD
| Citation | 2011 PLP (Trib (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Inland Revenue Appellate Tribunal of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Syed Muhammad Jamil Raza Zaidi, Judicial Member |
| Parties | Messrs RAKHSHANI BUILDERS, QUETTA Versus CIR (APPEALS), HYDERABAD |
| Primary Law | Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2011 PLP (Trib (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2011 PLP (Trib (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Inland Revenue Appellate Tribunal of Pakistan bench comprising: Syed Muhammad Jamil Raza Zaidi, Judicial Member.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2011 PLP (Trib (PTD) (Messrs RAKHSHANI BUILDERS, QUETTA Versus CIR (APPEALS), HYDERABAD). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Kamal Hassan Siddiqui for Appellant.
- Muhammad Ilyas for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 27th July, 2011.
- 3. Messrs Kamal Hassan Siddiqui, Advocate and Muhammad Ilyas, Advocate, both represented the appellant/taxpayer while none appeared on behalf of the Department. Therefore, the appeal is decided ex parte on its merits.
Headnotes / Summary
S.127
Appeal to the Commissioner (appeals)
Limitation--Condonation of delay
Pursuance of case before Ombudsman and courts of competent jurisdiction
Request was made to condone the delay on the ground that the case was legitimately persuaded before the Ombudsman and subsequently before the courts of competent jurisdiction
First Appellate Authority did not agree with the taxpayer and rejected the appeal being time barred
Applicant had filed an application for condonation of delay by stating that he had been legitimately following his -case before the courts of competent jurisdiction
Where a person had been pursuing his case in different forums believing that his action was within the framework of law, he became entitled for condonation of delay when these proceedings were irregular or lacked jurisdiction
Applicant had been following his case and pursuing remedies as provided under different circumstances
Taxpayer had genuine cause for getting condonation of delay by filing appeal
Keeping in view the long line of adjudication before Ombudsman and believing the intention of the appellant that he had been genuinely contesting his case as being aggrieved from the impugned order, request for condonation of delay was allowed and application was treated to be in time--Order of First Appellate Authority was set aside and the case was remanded to the First Appellate Authority with the direction that the appeal be heard on merits and be decided in accordance with law.
Judgment & Decree
SYED MUHAMMAD JAMIL RAZA ZAIDI (JUDICIAL MEMBER).
This appeal has been filed against the order of the Commissioner Inland Revenue (Appeals-III), Karachi dated 30-9-2010 whereby the learned Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeals on the ground that the same is barred by time by two and half years.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant challenges the validity of the Department order before the learned Ombudsman who accepted the application of the appellant and declared the Departmental action as maladministration, however, the Department challenged the said order before the President of Pakistan and the President accepted the Government's appeal by holding that the Ombudsman did not have the powers to interfere with the Departmental application. This order of the Ombudsman was challenged through Constitutional Petition and order of the President was confirmed by the High Court and by the Supreme Court. Being aggrieved the appellant filed appeal against the Departmental order before the Commissioner (Appeals) by making the request to condone the time on the ground he has been legitimately pursuing his case before Ombudsman and subsequently before the courts of competent jurisdiction. However, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) did not agree with his point of view and rejected the appeal as being time barred. Hence the present appeal.
3. Messrs Kamal Hassan Siddiqui, Advocate and Muhammad Ilyas, Advocate, both represented the appellant/taxpayer while none appeared on behalf of the Department. Therefore, the appeal is decided ex parte on its merits.
4. The learned AR of the appellant/taxpayer heard and the case record has been examined. The applicant has tiled an application for condonation of delay by stating that he has been legitimately following his case before the courts of competent jurisdiction. It is a well established principle of law that where a person has been pursuing his case in a different forums believing that his action is within the framework of law, he become entitled for condonation of delay when these proceedings form irregularity or lacking jurisdiction. This case comes out of a similar situation where the applicant has been following his case and pursuing remedies as provided under different circumstances. Hence he has genuine cause for getting condonation of delay by filing this appeal. Keeping in view the long line of adjudication before the parties and believing the intention of the appellant that he has been genuinely contesting his case as being aggrieved from the impugned order. I allow his request for condonation of delay and treat his application in time. In the light of this observation the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is set aside and the case is remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals) with the direction that the appeal be heard on merits and be decided in accordance with law. C.M.A./224/Tax(Trib.)???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Case remanded.