2002 PLP 270 (PTD)
Messrs NIDAI MILLAT LTD Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX
| Citation | 2002 PLP 270 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Sikandar and Jawad S. Khawaja, JJ |
| Parties | Messrs NIDAI MILLAT LTD Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 270 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2002 PLP 270 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: Nasim Sikandar and Jawad S. Khawaja, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP 270 (PTD) (Messrs NIDAI MILLAT LTD Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Sh. Maqbool Ahmad for Petitioner.
- Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Respondent.
Judgment & Decree
NASIM SIKANDAR, J.
The Lahore Bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal at the instance of the assessee a private limited company deriving income from publication of newspapers has referred the following questions of law said to have arisen out of a consolidated order recorded on 23-10-1983 by the Tribunal for the assessment years 1975-76:
(i) Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) whereby he had dismissed the assessee's appeal in limine as being barred by time? (ii) Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal should hale modified or vacated the order of the Commissioner of Income?tax (Appeals) for the reason that even if the assessee was not represented before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) on the date of hearing he was obliged under subsection (3) of section 130 of the Ordinance to allow the assessee a further opportunity of being heard if he intended to dismiss the appeal as barred by time?
2. The facts in brief are that the assessee filed an appeal before C.I.T. (Appeals) against the assessment order, dated 25-9-1985 framed ' for the year 1975-76. According to the order of the C.I. T. (Appeals) dated 21-12-1985 the petitioner failed to put in appearance despite proper service on 3-12-1985. Also he noted that the appeal before him was barred by one day. The learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal refused to show indulgence after observing that the record supported the findings of the C.I.T. (Appeals) that notice for hearing was properly served upon the assessee and secondly that the appeal filed by the assessee was barred by one day.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner in terms of statement of the case claims that the Tribunal ought to have modified or vacated the order of the C.I.T. (Appeals) on the ground that the assessee was not allowed reasonable opportunity of explaining the delay. The contention as couched in Question No. 2 is necessarily misplaced. According to the findings of fact as recorded by the Tribunal, the petitioner was properly served for the date of hearing. Obviously, no separate notice was required to confront the assessee that its appeal was barred by limitation. All the more so when no application for condonation of delay as made before the Commissioner nor an excuse had been put up before him. In absence of an explanation coming forth B on the record, as rightly found by the Tribunal, Commissioner Appeals was well within his domain to reject the appeal as barred by limitation. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not cited either any provision of law or a pronouncement of this Court that a forum exercising judicial of quasi judicial functions is required to confront his petitioner of a natural consequence of the default made on the part of his petitioner of appellant. Accordingly our answer to both the questions is in the affirmative. C.M.A./M.A.K./N-126/L??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Reference answered.