W.T.A. NO.568/113 OF 1997-98 VS W.T.A. NO.568/113 OF 1997-98
2001 P T D (Trib.) 2869
[Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Pakistan]
Before Jameel Ahmed Bhutto, Accountant Member and
Syed Masood ul Hassan Shah, Judicial Member
W.T.A. No.568/IB of 1997-98, decided on 15/05/2001.
(a) Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963)---
----S.23---Appeal to Appellate Assistant Commissioner from order of Wealth Tax Officer---Vague grounds of appeal---Effect---No provision of the Wealth Tax Act or the rules made thereunder empower the First Appellate Authority to consider dismissal of any appeal on the basis of vague grounds of appeal-- Section 23 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963 does not empower the First Appellate Authority to dismiss any appeal on such ground or similar ground.
(b) Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963)---
----S.23---Appeal---Vague grounds of appeal---Opportunity of being heard Provisions of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963 suggest that the appellant could be provided with an opportunity of being heard in order to remove vagueness, if any, in the original grounds of- appeal or substitute the same with unambiguous grounds, alongwith necessary particulars required for the disposal of appeal.
(c) Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963)---
----S.23---Appeal---Irregularity or defect---Right of appeal under S.23 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963 could not be denied on account, of any alleged irregularity or defect.
(d) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)---
----S.134--Appeal to Appellate Tribunal---Right of appeal granted to assessee under S.134 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 had been expressly granted by the Legislature and it could not be snatched away or sacrificed at the altar of procedural niceties dictated by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Rules---Such valuable right of appeal could also not be extinguished by an irregularity or an omission or defect which was either unintentional or error committed unwittingly or inadvertently.
1992 PTD (Trib.) 1176 distinguished.
1991 PTD (Trib.) 583 rel.
(e) Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963)---
----S.23---Appeal to Appellate Assistant Commissioner from order of Wealth Tax Officer---Appeal was dismissed on the ground that appeal with regard to valuation of properties was vague--Validity--Appeal had not been decided in the manner laid down in S.23 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963 and had not been adjudicated upon the grounds of appeal on merits of the case which were required to be dealt with in a proper, fair and judicious manner in accordance with law---Case was remanded for de novo proceedings.
1992 PTD (Trib.) 1176 distinguished.
1991 PTD (Trib.) 583 rel.
2000 PTD 2165 and Messrs Zamir Hussain and 7 others v. Rasul Butt PLD 1992 Lah.'427 ref.
Muhammad Waseem Siddiqui, F.C.A. for Appellant.
Nemo of Respondent.
Date of hearing:.9th May, 2001.
ORDER
JAMEEL AHMED BHUTTO (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER).---The above captioned wealth -tax appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the appellate order dated 20-1-1998 passed by the learned C.W.T.(A), Zone-I, Islamabad, in respect of the assessment year 1994-95.
2. We have heard Mr. Waseem Ahmed Siddiqui, Chartered Accountant, appearing as the authorized representative of the appellant and perused the orders passed at the lower forums. Since the D.R. has not made appearance on behalf of the department nor any reason for such non- appearance has been communicated, this order is being made ex parte on merits of the case as per rule 20(2) of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1981, read with section 24(11) .of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963,
3. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the firm opinion that the learned C.W.T.(A) was not justified to observe that the ground of appeal of the assessee with regard to valuation of properties was vague and, therefore, the appeal was liable to be dismissed. The learned C.I.T.(A) has referred to the case reported as 1992 PTD (Trib.) 1176 wherein it was held that the income-tax appeals of the department were incompetent for admission by the Tribunal because the grounds were vague and did not specify the quantum of declared sales, the figures adopted by the Assessing Officer and the relief ordered by the learned C.W.T.(A) and as such the grounds did not come up to the requirements of rule 10 of the ITAT Rules; 1981. This reported case could not form the basis for the observation of the learned C.W.T.(A) that the ground with regard to valuation of properties was vague and, therefore, the wealth tax appeal was also liable to be dismissed, firstly, because he had himself given the finding that the valuation of the properties Was in accordance with law and facts of the case and then referred to the grievance of the assessee that the properties had been valued arbitrarily and excessively. Besides, the case reported (supra) pertained to the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 and not the Act.
4. We are of the firm opinion that no provision of the Act or the rules made thereunder empowers the First Appellate Authority (A.A.C.) to consider dismissal of any appeal on the basis of vagueness of any ground of appeal. Sections 23 of the Act also does not empower the A.A. C. to consider dismissal of any appeal on that ground or any similar ground. On the other hand, subsection (3) of section 23 of the Act makes it incumbent upon the A.A.C. to, give the appellant a reasonable opportunity of being heard. This provision of the Act suggests that the appellant could be provided an opportunity of being heard in order to remove vagueness, if any, in the original grounds of appeal or to substitute the satxte with unambiguous grounds, alongwith the necessary particulars, required for the disposal of appeal by the AAC In this case, valuable right of appeal under section 23 of the Act could not be denied on account of any alleged irregularity or defect.
5. Even for the purposes of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 (hereafter the Ordinance), the sanctity of the right of appeal and the case-law in support thereof was considered by the larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case reported as 1991 PTD (Trib.) 583. The upshot of whole discussion in that case was that the right of appeal granted to an appellant under section 134 of the ordinance had been expressly granted by the legislature and it could not be snatched away or sacrificed at the altar of procedural niceties dictated by the I.T.A.T. Rules. Such valuable right of appeal could also not be extinguished by an irregularity or an omission or defect which was either unintentional or error committed unwittingly or inadvertently. In another case, where departmental appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal on the ground that the certified copy of impugned judgment was not attached with the. memorandum of appeal, it was held by the Lahore High Court in 2000 PD 2165 that the, matter could not be allowed to be determined in a perfunctory manner, as was disposed of by the Tribunal and, therefore, the impugned order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was set aside after dispensing -with the certified copy of the impugned judgment and the case was remanded to it for its decision afresh in accordance with law.. The Hon ble High Court also referred to the dictum enunciated in Messrs Zamir Hussain and 7 others v. Rasul Butt PLD 1992 Lah. 427 that act of the Court must not prejudice hearing of the cause and its decision on merits. In Islam, approach of the Court and its discretion in a cause for decision before it must be regulated and nurtured in the Islamic philosophy of administration of justice wherein technicalities are not allowed to trip the litigants and obstruct fair cause of justice.
6. We are also astonished to note that the learned C.W.T.(A) has ignored the appeal preferred by the assessee for the assessment year 1995-96 which was received in his office on 8-9-1997 vide covering letter No.3 60/DIR/97/440, dated September 08, 1997 through which appeals for both the assessment years 1994-95 and 1995-96 were filed. The notice for filing the appeals for the assessment years 1994-95 and 1995-96 was also sent to the Assessing Officer vide Letter No.3-60/DIR/97/443, dated September 09, 1997 by registered post A.D. under postal receipt No. 1261 and received on 10-7-1997. Instead of asking for an explanation about the other appeal for the assessment year 1995-96, the learned C.W.T.(A) seems to have hurriedly come to the conclusion that the appeal was filed only for the assessment year 1994-95. This conclusion was not based on appraisal of evidence available with the appellant or consideration of material placed on the office file of the learned -C.W.T.(A) which would have shown that appeals for both the assessment years i.e. 199.4-95 and 1995-96 had been filed against the combined assessment order passed under section 16(3) for these two years and acknowledged to have been received.
7. In view of above facts and circumstances of the case, we have no doubt in our mind that the learned C.W.T.(A) has not decided the appeals in the manner laid down in section 23 of the Act and has not adjudicated upon the grounds of appeal on merits of the case which were required to be dealt with in a proper, fair and judicious manner in accordance with law.
8. For the facts and reasons stated above, we remand the case back to the learned C.W.T.(Al for de novo proceedings and disposal of wealth tax appeals for the assessment years 1994-95 and 1995-96 on merits, of the case and in accordance with law.
C.M.A./M.A.K./102/Tax(Trib.) Case remanded.