Law: Income Tax Ordinance, 2001

Section: 161, 205, 124, 129(1), 122(5)

O r d e r Nasir Mahmud (Member) : This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 26.01.2026 passed by the learned Commissioner Inland Revenue (Appeals) (“CIR(A)”), who was seized of an appeal arising out of an order passed under sections 124, 161, and 205 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 (“the Ordinance”), and who concluded the appeal in the following terms:–  “I have examined the case record, verbal arguments as well as facts of the case, it is observed that a second appeal is pending adjudication before the Honorable Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue (ATIR). It is a settled principle of law that when the matter is sub judice before a higher appellate forum, the lower authorities are required to exercise judicial restraint and avoid parallel proceedings which may result in multiplicity of litigation and conflicting decisions. Furthermore, the record reflects that the impugned order was framed without affording the appellant a proper opportunity of being heard, in violation of the principles of natural justice and in disregard of the explicit directions of the learned CIR (Appeals). The alleged non-service of notice and the lapse of statutory time also raise serious legal infirmities in the proceedings conducted by the learned OIR. In the fitness of thing the appellant is hereby directed to approach the Zonal Commissioner for resolution of the matter and for review of the order under section 122(5) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, in accordance with law. The Zonal Commissioner is also required to examine the matter and initiate appropriate proceedings, if so warranted, after affording the appellant a proper and fair opportunity of being heard, in adherence to the principles of natural justice and in compliance with all applicable statutory requirements. Keeping in view the above facts, the challenged order dated 30.06.2025 made u/s 124/161/205 of the Ordinance stands modified accordingly. The appeal is disposed of in the manner and to the extent discussed above.” 2.    Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred a second appeal before this Tribunal on the facts and grounds enumerated in the…