PTD 2006

2006 PLP (Trib (PTD)

N/A

Jurisdiction / Court
Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Pakistan
Decided Date
M.As. Nos.795/LB and 796/LB of 2005, decided on 27th January, 2006. Income Tax
Honorable Judges
Ehsan-ur-Rehman, Judicial Member and Naseer Ahmad, Accountant
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2006 PLP (Trib (PTD)
Forum / Court Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Pakistan
Bench Members Ehsan-ur-Rehman, Judicial Member and Naseer Ahmad, Accountant
Parties N/A
Primary Law Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP (Trib (PTD)?

This judgment primarily cites: Ordinance (XLIX of 2001) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 PLP (Trib (PTD)?

The case was heard and decided by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Pakistan bench comprising: Ehsan-ur-Rehman, Judicial Member and Naseer Ahmad, Accountant.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP (Trib (PTD) (N/A). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)

Representation

  • Sirajuddin Khalid for Appellant.
  • Muzammal Hussain, D.R. for Respondents.

Headnotes / Summary

S. 131

Appeal

Restoration

Assessee submitted that non-appearance was due to inadvertent mistake in recording the date fixed in the diary of Authorized Representative, so he may not be allowed to be adversely affected and condemned unheard

Validity

Appellate Tribunal restored the appeal to its original position. Date of haring: 27th January, 2006.

Judgment & Decree

The title applications are seeking recalling of order dated 15-10-2005 passed by the Tribunal in I.T.As. Nos.1833 and 1834/LB of 2003 for the reason that the assessee was not present. It has been submitted that non-appearance is as a result of inadvertent mistake in recording the date fixed in the diary of Authorized Representative, so far this the assessee may not be allowed to be adversely affected. Secondly, it has been submitted that condemning unheard is not proper. The submissions on behalf of the applicant are supported by duly sworn in attested affidavit. The learned D.R. has opposed this application with the submission that it was a non-appearance despite proper intimation of the date fixed. We have heard both the parties and have perused the available record. We find force in the submission placed at bar before us by the learned A.R., therefore, we feel inclined to restore the appeals to its original position. Appeals are fixed for hearing on 4-2-2006. The date has been noted by the learned A.R. today. The office is directed to place these appeals before any available Bench for hearing. C.M.A./68/Tax(Trib.)?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal restored.