2007 PLP 2389 (PTD)
Messrs GUJRANWALA COLLEGE EMPLOYEES COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD., GUJRANWALA Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX and 2 others
| Citation | 2007 PLP 2389 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Sh. Azmat Saeed and Umar Ata Bandial, JJ |
| Parties | Messrs GUJRANWALA COLLEGE EMPLOYEES COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD., GUJRANWALA Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX and 2 others |
| Primary Law | Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP 2389 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2007 PLP 2389 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: Sh. Azmat Saeed and Umar Ata Bandial, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP 2389 (PTD) (Messrs GUJRANWALA COLLEGE EMPLOYEES COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD., GUJRANWALA Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX and 2 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Anwarul Haq for Appellant.
- Shahid Jamil for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 12th February, 2007.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 85, 129, 132, 134 & 136
Aggrieved by assessment order, appellant/assessee filed appeal under S.132 of Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 before Appellate Additional Commissioner, which was dismissed being barred by time-Appeal filed by appellant before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was also dismissed
Order of assessment was served upon Authorized Representative of appellant and period of computation of limitation was determined by Appellate Additional Commissioner from the date of the alleged service of assessment order upon the Authorized Representative
Limitation for filing appeal prescribed under S.130(2) of Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, was 30 days from date of service of assessment or penalty order in question--Section 85 of Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, had specifically provided that any assessment or order under the Ordinance, would be served upon assessee or any other person liable to pay tax on behalf of the assessee
Authorized Representation being neither the assessee nor liable to pay tax on behalf of assessee, service on him was not `service' in terms of S.85 of Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 and the period of time would nun commence from service of such assessment. order upon an Authorized Representative
Where assessment order had not been served upon appellant or any other person liable to pay -tax on his behalf, period of limitation would not commence
Appeal, in circumstances had erroneously been held to be barred by limitation.
Judgment & Decree
SH. AZMAT SAEED, J.
This appeal under section 136(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 is directed against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 29-10-1999.
2. Brief facts for adjudication of the matter are that aggrieved by an assessment order the appellant filed an appeal under section 132 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 before the respondent No.2 which was dismissed as being time-barred vide order dated 17-11-1998. Aggrieved the appellant filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal which also failed to find favour and was dismissed vide the impugned order dated 29-10-1999.
3. The learned counsel for the parties have been heard and the record perused.
4. In the instant case the order of assessment was served upon the Authorized Representative of the appellant and period of computation of limitation was determined by the respondent No.2 from the date of the alleged service of the assessment order upon the said Authorized Representative. An appeal to respondent No. 2 was filed under section 129 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. The limitation thereof was prescribed under section 130(2) of the said Ordinance, which is 30 days from the date of service of the assessment or penalty in question. Section 85 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 specifically provides that any assessment or order under the Ordinance shall be served upon the assessee or any other person liable to pay such tax on behalf of the assessee. An Authorized Representative is neither the assessee nor liable to pay tax on behalf of the assessee, therefore, service on an Authorized Representative is not service in terms of section 85 of the Ordinance, 1979 and the period of time would not commence from service of such assessment order upon an Authorized Representative. Thus, in the circumstances where assessment had not been served upon the appellant or any other person liable to pay tax on his behalf the period of limitation would not commence, therefore, the appeal had erroneously been held to be barred by limitation. We have no hesitation to accept this appeal and hold in the facts and circumstances of the case that the appeal filed by the appellant before respondent No.2 .was not barred by limitation. The appeal is accepted in the above terms. H.B.T./G-58/L Appeal accepted.