Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1981--

----Rr.10 & 11---Omission to annex certified copies of the impugned orders with the memorandum of appeal---Effect--Appeals were filed before Tribunal without annexing the certified copies of the impugned orders---Rule 11 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1981 was a mandatory provision requiring certified copies of impugned orders to be annexed with the memorandum of appeal--- Non-compliance of any provisions of said Rules was to be deemed as non-compliance of the provisions of the Ordinance itself-- Appeals were dismissed for non-compliance of R. 11 as also for violation of R.10 as the same were filed in haphazard manner on vague grounds.

Siraj-ud-Din Khalid for Appellant.

Munir Ahmad Sheikh, D.R. for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 22nd August, 1989.

ORDER

These five further appeals are brought by the appellant/assessee against the impugned orders, dated 5-5-1985 and 4-2-1986 passed by the learned Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Range-E, Lahore for the assessment years 1981-82, 1984-85 and 1985-86 on the vague grounds, like that the estimate of receipts was highly excessive; that the expenses allowed are inadequate; that the income assessed was excessive; that the curtailment of profit and loss expenses was not justifiable; that the quantum of income assessed was arbitrary and highly excessive and there was no justification given for increasing the quantum of income assessed at Rs.40,000 for the assessment year 1983-84 and the penalty imposed under section 91 was unjustified, illegal and highly excessive.

2. The instant appeals were filed before the Tribunal on July 2, 1985 against the impugned order, dated May 5, 1985 which was communicated to the appellant/assessee on May 20,1985. It is also noticed that the appeals were filed without annexing the certified copies of the impugned orders which is a mandatory provision under the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Rules of 1981.

3. Mr. Siraj-ud-Din Khalid, learned counsel for the appellant/assessee who is by virtue of post President of the Income-tax Bar has failed to produce the requisite certified copy and he even did not prefer any cogent reasons for the same. The appeals were filed on vague grounds in a haphazard manner which is not appreciable at all.

4. I am inclined to reproduce clauses 10 and 11 of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Rules of 1981 which are mandatory in nature and no departure can be made or allowed to either party to reap the fruits. Departure of rules connotes departure of Income-tax Law according to which the appeals are filed before the Tribunal:---

"Rule 10. Contents of memorandum of appeal. --- Every memorandum of appeal shall be written in Urdu or English and shall set forth concisely and under distinct heads the (specific) grounds of appeal without any argument or narrative; and such grounds shall be numbered consecutively.

Rule 11 Documents to accompany memorandum of appeal: --(1) Every memorandum of appeal shall be in triplicate and shall be accompanied by two clear and legible copies (one of which shall be certified copy) of the order appealed against and two copies of the order of the Income Tax Officer alongwith certificates as provided under rule 12, and in the case of an appeal filed by an assessee, the memorandum of an appeal shall also be accompanied by the receipt showing deposit of fee as speed under subsection (5) of section 134."

The requisite Rules were framed in exercise of the powers conferred by subsection (8) of section 133 of the Income-tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1949) and subject to the provisions of this Ordinance the Appellate Tribunal has powers to make its own procedure. I am also inclined to make illustration of the words "subject to". When the provision in a statute is "subject to" another provision requiring something to be done, "the first provision is conditional upon the performance what is required by the provision referred to". Subsection (8) of section 133 of the Income-tax Ordinance gives power to make rules and departure of these rules shall be deemed to be a non- complianace of the provisions of the Ordinance itself. The instant appeals were filed in a haphazard manner without annexing certified copies as required under rule 11 of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Rules referred to above. What is still more stultifying is that the learned Advocate has ignored the same for the reasons best known to him.

5. For the foregoing reasons and the law explained above, I do not feel any hesitation to dismiss the instant appeals straightaway being devoid of merits and preferred in violation of the rules made under the Income-tax Ordinance of 1979. The impugned orders dated 5-5-1985 and 4-2-1986 passed by the learned Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Range-E, Lahore are maintained accordingly.

M.BA./1734/T Appeals dismissed.