2017 PLP (Trib (PTD)
C.I.R., ZONE-II, R.T.O., SUKKUR Versus Messrs PAWAN KUMAR AND CO. THUL
| Citation | 2017 PLP (Trib (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Inland Revenue Appellate Tribunal |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Jawed Zakaria, Judicial Member and Ms. Farzana Jabeen, Accountant Member |
| Parties | C.I.R., ZONE-II, R.T.O., SUKKUR Versus Messrs PAWAN KUMAR AND CO. THUL |
| Primary Law | Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2017 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 2017 PLP (Trib (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Inland Revenue Appellate Tribunal bench comprising: Muhammad Jawed Zakaria, Judicial Member and Ms. Farzana Jabeen, Accountant Member.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2017 PLP (Trib (PTD) (C.I.R., ZONE-II, R.T.O., SUKKUR Versus Messrs PAWAN KUMAR AND CO. THUL). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Udha Ram Rajput for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 131
Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue Rules, 2010, R.22
Dismissal of appeal for non-prosecution
Counsel represented the taxpayer, but none appeared on behalf of the department
Department was called thrice to contest the case no one appeared and no adjournment application was submitted
Taking a lenient view and in the interest of justice, case of the appellant/department was placed at last number and after hearing all other cases, appellant was again called to appear for hearing, but no one appeared
Tribunal, addressed a letter to the Chief Commissioner regarding such non-appearance, despite that no effective measures had been taken by the department and no serious attention had been given by the high ranking authorities of Chief Commissioners
Such attitude of the concerned Commissioner, was not expected
Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue, observed that Tribunal like any judicial body, had a number of procedural requirements which were to be complied with before appeal could be heard
Several departmental representatives, even some of them most senior and highly qualified had neglected to comply with requirements, of law, decency, decorum of the court craft and court culture; bypassing the interest of the revenue, with the result that their matters get adjourned and they wasted their own time and that of the department and the Bench of the Tribunal
Despite proper service of notice of hearing, in the present case, none appeared on behalf of the department nor submitted any adjournment application
Appeal was dismissed in default under R.22 of the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue Rules, 2010. None for the Appellant.