Case Details

Citation(s)
2001 SLG 160 2001 SLD 160 2001 PTD 1040 (2001) 83 TAX 21
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal
I.T.A. No. 809(IB) of 1997-98, decision dated: 16-10-2000, hearing DATE : 26-09-2000
KARAMAT HUSSAIN NIAZI, JUDICIAL MEMBER MAHMOOD AHMED MALIK, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Petition(s) by: Abdul Shakoor, D.R.
Respondent(s) by: Nemo

Deprecated: preg_match(): Passing null to parameter #2 ($subject) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 411

Deprecated: htmlspecialchars(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 435

Law: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979

Section: 156

(a) Income-tax---Appeal---Limitation---Delay in filing appeal---Condonation of delay--­Sufficient cause---Determination---Principles---Plea of "rush of work" for condonation of delay by no stretch of imagination was a "sufficient cause". Chamber's Dictionary; Oxford Dictionary; Black's Law Dictionary; 1990 CLC 206 and PLD 1984 SC (AJ&K) 51 ref. (b) Words and phrases----"Sufficient cause"---Meaning. Chamber's Dictionary; Oxford Dictionary; Black's Law Dictionary; 1990 CLC 206 and PLD 1984 SC (AJ&K) 51 ref. ORDER KARAMAT HUSSAIN NIAZI (JUDICIAL MEMBER).---This departmental appeal relates to assessment year .1996-97 and is directed against the order, dated 25-8-1997 recorded by the learned AAC of the Income Tax, Islamabad. 2. This appeal was decided ex parte by the learned Single Bench of this Tribunal vide order, dated 29-11-1999 wherein it was held that the appeal is barred by tune and was rejected. Upon the application filed by the Department under section 156 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 that application for condonation of delay was filed alongwith the appeal by the Department, and therefore, without considering the application for condonation of delay, the order passed by Single Bench was rectifiable. This application was allowed and the main appeal was directed to be fixed for hearing on merits. 3. The learned DR admits that the appeal is barred by 7 days and could not be filed in time due to rush of work and other assignments. The application for condonation of delay, dated 11-12-1997 is on the file wherein it is stated that due to rush of work, the appeal could not be filed within time. The learned D.R. contends that it is a sufficient cause and prayed the delay to be condoned and the appeal be considered to be within time. 4. The respondent-assessee has failed to appear in spite of service of notice. We proceed to decide this appeal on merits on the basis of material available on file. 5. The main controversy revolves around the determination regarding what is sufficient cause or what facts are sufficient which caused the delay in filing the appeal within time, and thus, satisfies the conscious of the Court to make order for condonation of…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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