COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX/WEALTH TAX, FAISALABAD ZONE, FAISALABAD VS RASHID AHMED
2001 PTD 2316
[Lahore High Court]
Before Nasim Sikandar and Jawwad S. Khawaja, JJ
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX/WEALTH TAX,
FAISALABAD ZONE, FAISALABAD
Versus
Sheikh RASHID AHMED
C.I.T. No.37 of 1999, decided on 07/02/2001.
(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)‑‑‑--
‑‑‑‑S.136(1)‑‑‑Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1981, R.10‑‑‑Appeal to High Court‑‑‑Contents of Memorandum of Appeal‑‑‑Appeal dismissed by the Tribunal on account of alleged violation of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1981, was allowed by the High Court and judgment of the Tribunal was .set aside‑‑‑Effect‑‑‑Appeal shall be deemed to be pending before the Tribunal for disposal on merits in accordance with law.
C.I.T. v. Muhammad Tariq Javaid 2000 PTD 2165 and Pakistan Industrial Gases Ltd. v. C.I.T. and another 2000 PTD 2903 rel.
(b) Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1981‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑R.11‑‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XLI, R. 1‑‑‑Rule 11 of the Income‑Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1981 had an independent status having no nexus with O.XLI, R.1 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908.
C.I.T. v. Muhammad Tariq Javaid 2000 PTD 2165 rel.
(c) Income‑tax‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑Dispute as to collection of revenue‑‑‑Manner of determination‑‑‑Dispute in matters of collection of revenue could not be allowed to be determined in a perfunctory manner.
(d) Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1981‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑R.10‑‑‑Appeal‑‑‑Contents of memorandum of appeal‑‑‑Dismissal of appeal by the Tribunal for the reason that Memorandum of Appeal contained argumentative grounds which was violative of R.10 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1981, was not approved by the High Court.
Pakistan Industrial Gases Ltd. v. C.I.T. and another 2000 PTD 2903 rel,
Shafqat Mehmood Chohan for Petitioner.
ORDER
NASIM SIKANDAR, J.‑‑‑This further appeal under section 136(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance assails the dismissal of appeal filed by the A appellant on account of alleged violation of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1981.
2. After hearing the learned counsel we will agree at the outset that the issue in hand already stands resolved in favour of the appellant by a Division Bench of the Court in re: C.I.T. v. Muhammad Tariq Javaid 2000 PTD 2165. In that case, it was inter alia held that rule 11 of the Income Tax 18 Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1981 had an independent status having no nexus with the Order 41, rule 1 of C.P.C. Also that in matters of collection of revenue the dispute could not be allowed to be determined in a perfunctory C manner as had been done by the Tribunal. In another recent judgment Re: Pakistan Industrial Gases Ltd. v. C.I.T. and another 2000 PTD 2903 another Division Bench of this Court disapproved the dismissal of appeal by the Tribunal for the reason that memo. of appeal contained argumentative ID grounds which was violative of rule 10 of the said rules.
3. For the various reasons recorded in C.T.R. No.89 of 1993, in which the issue has been dealt with at length in the light of the aforesaid two judgments, we will allow this appeal and set aside the impugned judgment of the Tribunal. The appeal filed by the appellant shall, therefore, be deemed pending before it be heard and disposed of on merits in accordance with law.
C.M.A./M.A.K./C‑35/L????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Order accordingly.