Law: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979

Section: 130

Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)----S. 130---Form of Appeal---Appeal fee ---Amendment---Effect--¬Prospective and not retrospective---Appellant's appeal was rejected by First Appellate Authority on ground of non-compliance of provisions of S. 130, Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 in which appeal fee was enhanced by Finance Act, 1995---Relevant assessment year under appeal was 1992-93---Held, Amendment for enhancement of fee having been introduced by Finance Act, 1995 and there being nothing to show that it had retrospective effect, same was to take effect prospectively---Appeal fee deposited by appellant was held proper, therefore, appeal would be deemed to be pending before C.I.T.(A) for hearing subject to reasonable opportunity to be heard. I.T.A. No. 1217/KB of 1994-95 ref. ORDER In this appeal the assessee has challenged the correctness of the order dated 7-11-1995 rendered by the then CIT (A), Zone-II, Lahore. Earlier assessment order under section 63 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 was passed by the special Officer Income Tax Circle 16 Zone-A Lahore on 14-6-1995. The relevant assessment year is 1992-93 2. The order passed by the assessing officer was assailed by the assessee in the first appellate forum for various reasons, as is made out from the grounds of appeal filed over there. However, the appeal was not heard on merits by the CIT(A) and the same was rejected for the reason that the assessee had deposited less fee of appeal. According to the CIT(A) the assessee was supposed to deposit fee of Rs.160 whereas he had deposited appeal fee of Rs.25 only and thus the assessee had failed to fulfil the statutory requirement in this regard. It may be pointed out that for the year under appeal the total income of the assessee was assessed at Rs.46,000 and as such tax demand of Rs.1,600 was created against the assessee. 3. Aggrieved by the order passed by the CIT(A) the assessee has come up in second appeal. The case of the assessee is that the order passed by the CIT(A) was bad in law and against the facts of the case. 4. We have heard the arguments addressed by the learned authorized representatives of both the parties and have also gone through the orders…

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