Law: Limitation Act, 1908

Section: 5

Law: Income Tax Ordinance, 2001

Section: 133

Tag Line: Condonation of delay--Section 05 of the Limitation Act, 1908--- Office Objections ----Delayed Re-filing --The period consumed in removing office objections cannot be excluded as a matter of course or practice, nor does subsequent re-filing automatically relate back to the date of original defective presentation. Unless delay is judicially condoned upon sufficient cause, the proceeding remains barred by limitation.        ORDER SHEET   C.M. No.1/2026 & MAIN CASE Through this single order, we propose to decide the applications under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 (“the Act”) seeking condonation of delay in filing the instant Income Tax Reference as well as connected Income Tax References No.248831/2018 and 248825/2018. Learned counsel for the applicant-department submits that the References were initially presented on 13.01.2018, within the prescribed period of limitation, whereafter certain office objections were raised. According to learned counsel, the objections were subsequently removed and the References were re-filed on 12.11.2018. It is contended that once the References had initially been presented within limitation, the subsequent re-filing, after removal of office objections, could not render them time-barred. Learned counsel further submits that the applicant had removed the objections promptly, but the office failed to endorse the same within time. It is also argued that since no objection regarding limitation was raised by the office at the time of re-filing, the References ought to be treated as having been filed within time. Learned counsel lastly contends that the question regarding the effect of delayed re-filing after removal of office objections was authoritatively settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan through judgment dated 31.07.2026 passed in CPLA No.41-L/2026 titled as Commissioner Inland Revenue v. M/s Al-Hamad Cotton Ginning Pressing Factory, Jhang (2026 SCP 238) and connected matters, and that the said judgment ought not to be applied retrospectively to the prejudice of the applicant. We have heard learned counsel for the applicant and examined the record as…