| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2017 SLG 1116 2017 SLD 1116 2017 PTD 1725 (2017) 116 TAX 147 |
Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue
I.T.As. Nos. 17/KB to 21/KB and 309/KB of 2012, decision Date : 9th December, 2014. Heard on: 9th December, 2014.
MUHAMMAD, JAWED ZAKARIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER, FAHEEMUL HAQ KHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
None for Appellant. Girdharimal, D.R. for
Respondent.
I.T.As. Nos. 17/KB to 21/KB and 309/KB of 2012, decision Date : 9th December, 2014. Heard on: 9th December, 2014.
MUHAMMAD, JAWED ZAKARIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER, FAHEEMUL HAQ KHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
None for Appellant. Girdharimal, D.R. for
Respondent.
MESSRS B.P. PAKISTAN EXPLORATION AND PRODUCTION INC
VS
THE CIR, Zone-III, LTU, KARACHI
Law: Income Tax Ordinance, 2001
Section: 223,223(2)
Law: Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue Rules, 2010
Section: 27
(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)--- ----S. 223---Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue Rules, 2010, R.27---Adjournment---Appearance by authorized representative---No authorized representative appeared on behalf of appellant/taxpayer despite proper valid service of notice on various dates fixed for hearing---Someone appeared on the last date of hearing who was neither employee of the taxpayer, nor a qualified income tax practitioner---Adjournment request could be made either by a party or his authorized representative personally---Appellate Tribunal observed that addressing the court or moving any application by a stranger/ unauthorized/ incompetent person was not permissible---Appearance before the Tribunal, even for seeking an adjournment, was representation and only the person authorized to appear as such, could seek an adjournment on behalf of the taxpayer---Trainee clerks or clerical staff employed by professionals were not competent to appear in that behalf in the absence of necessary authorization---Seeking adjournment on one pretext or the other, was against the National Judicial Policy, which spoke speedy disposal of the case---Moving applications time and again by the counsel for taxpayer, was tantamount to defeat the ends of speedy and meaningful dispensation of justice---Litigant parties, could not take unnecessary adjournments; they ought to strictly adhere and follow the National Judicial Policy. (b) Administration of justice--- ----Thing required by law or by rule, was to be done in the manner prescribed by the law---If not done so, the entire structure built on the same would fall---Thing should be done according to law, or should not be done at all. 2006 PTD 386; PLD 1964 SC 536; 2001 SCMR 838; 2003 SCMR 1505; 2011 PTD 2480; 2011 PTD 1172; 2011 PTD 43; 2010 PTD 1315; 2009 PTD 2074; 2007 PTD 1292 and 2009 PTD 1919 ref. THIS ORDER PASSED BY: MUHAMMAD JAWED ZAKARIA (JUDICIAL MEMBER):---.--- Today, when these appeals came up for hearing no authorized representative appeared on behalf of the appellant despite proper and valid service of notice. 2. Earlier these appeals had been fixed so many times. The appeals were filed on 17-01-2013. The appeals…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492