Case Details

Citation(s)
2007 SLG 79 2007 SLD 79 2007 PTD 1387 2008 PTCL 112 (2007) 96 TAX 11
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Constitutional Petitions Nos. 440-L of 2001, decision dated: 10-07-2006. (On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 2-10-2000 passed in C.T.R. No.23 of 1989)
IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J., TASSADUQ HUSSAIN, JILLANI AND KARAMAT NAZIR BHANDARI, JJ
Shahbaz Butt, Advocate Supreme Court and C.M. Latif, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. M. Ilyas Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. M. Aslam Chattha, Advocate-on-Record for
Respondents

Messrs NIDA-EMILLAT, LAHORE

VS

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, Zone-I, LAHORE

Law: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979

Section: 130,130(2)(3)

(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)--S.130(2)(3)---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---Appeal to Appellate Authority---Delay of one day---Dismissal of ' appeal---Application for condoning such delay not made to authority, but made for the first time before Supreme Court---Validity---Limitation would create a right in favour of opposite party---Making of such application before Supreme Court would show that appeal before authority was time-barred, thus, petitioner had an obligation to make application or submit explanation therefore before the authority---Supreme Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Art.185(3) of the Constitution, could not condone delay occurring in filing of appeal before Authority---Petitioner had rightly been declined relief---Supreme Court refused leave to appeal in circumstances. (b) Limitation--- --Delay, condonation of---Limitation would create a right in favour of opposite party---When an appeal or proceedings were time-barred, then duty of person approaching court would be at least to submit application or make explanation in that regard. ORDER IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J.---This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 2-10-2000 whereby the learned High Court declined to interefere in the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who had dismissed the same being barred by time Concluding para. From the judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:--- "Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner in terms of statement of the case claims that the Tribunal ought to have modified or vacated the order of the C.I.T.(Appeals) on the ground that the assessee was not allowed reasonable opportunity of explaining the delay. The contention as couched in question No.2 is necessarily misplaced. According to the findings of fact as recorded by the Tribunal, the petitioner was properly served for the date of hearing obviously, no separate notice was required to confront the assessee that its appeal was barred by limitation. All the moreso when no application for condonation of delay was made before the Commissioner nor any excuse had been put up…
🔒
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