Case Details

Citation(s)
2004 SLG 53 2004 SLD 53 2004 PTD 1825 (2004) 89 TAX 168
Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue
I.T.A. No.4245/LB of 2002 and M.A. (Cond.) No.437/LB of 2003, decision dated: 13-09-2003, hearing DATE : 13-09-2003
RASHEED AHMAD SHEIKH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND AMJAD ALI RANJHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Nemo for Appellant, Ch. Muhammad Tahir for
Respondent

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: 134(3),139,139(8),217

Law: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1981

Section: 20(2)

Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) --------S. 134(3) Appeal to Appellate Tribunal Condonation of delay-Copy of order was communicated to Commissioner of Income Tax as on 8 7 2002 while the date of communication of the order appeal against had been mentioned, in the memos of appeal, by the Department as 9 7 2002 Appeal was filed in the Office of Appellate Tribunal as on 7 9 2002 Application for condonation of delay of one day Contents of application was self contradictory and misstatement of facts Validity -Appeal filed by the Department on 7 9 2002 was hit by limitation by one day as the Commissioner of Income Tax received copy of order on 8 7 2002 Revenue was not supposed to misstate the facts before Appellate Tribunal High officials of Income Tax hierarchy should take serious note of such misstatement of facts because such acts diminish credibility of the Department Appeal had been filed by the Department on 61st day from the date of communication of the order appealed against Appeal should be filed within 60 days of the date of which the order is communicated to the Commissioner or the assessee as the case may be Application for condonation of delay was also filed with a delay of 299 days Party in appeal was .obliged to explain the delay of each and every day from the date of knowledge of the order Valuable right had accrued to other side on expiry of period of limitation, which could not be taken away except on making out sufficient cause explaining delay of each day Reasons advanced by the department for condonation of delay in no way was a sufficient cause for extension of time -Application for condonation of delay was not maintainable in the circumstances. 2001 MLD 1489; 2001 SCMR 1346; 2000 MLD 1335; 2000 SCMR 1197; 1981 SCMR 37 and 2001 SCMR 1630 rel. ORDER RASHEED AHMAD SHEIKH (JUDICIAL MEMBER). The Revenue besides assailing the order passed by the CIT(A) Zone V, Lahore, dated 23 5 2002 in respect of the assessment year 1998 99 has also filed a Misc. Application for condonation of delay of one day in filing appeal against the said order of the First Appellate Authority in the office of the ITAT, Lahore. This case for the first time came up for…
🔒
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