COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/WEALTH TAX COMPANIES ZONE, FAISALABAD VS Messrs BLUE SKY TOUR BUREAU (PVT.) FAISALABAD, 2005 PTD-LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE 2209 (2005)

(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)-----

--------S. 136---Appeal to High Court---Adjournment---Another counsel on behalf of the counsel for the appellant (department) stated that counsel for the appellant was busy before another Division Bench of the High Court but he was unable to specify the Division Bench before whom the counsel for the appellant was busy nor was he aware of the case in which counsel for the appellant was busy---Said counsel requested that since counsel for the appellant would not be able to appear, the case be adjourned--Validity---Held, the request for adjournment was too vague and too unspecific to be acceptable---Neither any general adjournment had been sought nor had any application or request specifying the case or the Bench had been made---Adjournment request as made did not merit acceptance and as such was rejected.

(b) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)---

----S. 136---Appeal to High Court---Service of respondents (assessees)---Office had reported that the appellant (department) had failed to comply with the orders of the Court and despite such orders, it had neither provided fresh addresses of the respondents (assessees) nor the process fee due to which notices could not be issued to the respondents---Counsel appearing on behalf of the counsel for the appellant stated that fresh addresses of the respondents along with the process were dropped in the "Box"---Said counsel could neither produce the requisite receipt nor the diary number in respect thereto as the process fee or addresses etc. were to be deposited at the specified counter against receipt or/and a diary number---Drop Box had been set up for urgent petitions---Office of the High Court, itself had reported on the completion certificate that the notices were not issued as the appellant had not provided the fresh addresses nor the process fee---Appeal was dismissed by the High Court in circumstances.

Rana Muhammad Afzal for Appellant.

ORDER

States that Mian Muhammad Yousaf Umar, Advocate for the appellant is busy before another Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court. He however is unable to specify the Hon'ble Division Bench before whom the counsel for the appellant is busy at this time nor is he aware of the case in which Mian Yousaf Umar, Advocate is busy. Rana Muhammad Afzal, Advocate however states that Mian Yousaf Umar, A Advocate will not be able to appear wherefor the case be adjourned.

2. We find the request for adjournment to be too vague and too unspecific to be acceptable. Neither any general adjournment has been sought nor has any application or request specifying the case or the Hon'ble Bench has been made. The adjournment request as made does not merit acceptance and is as such rejected.

3. The office has reported that the appellant has also failed to comply with orders, dated 5-1-2005 and 26-4-2005. The appellant, despite orders, has not provided fresh addresses of the respondents or the process fee due in which notices could not be issued to the respondents. In response to this, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the learned counsel for the appellant states that fresh addresses of the respondents along with the process were dropped in the "Box". The learned counsel could neither produce the requisite receipt not the diary number in respect thereto as the process fee or addresses etc. (as per office and registry procedure) are to be deposited at the specified counter against receipt or/and a diary number. The `drop box' has been set up for urgent petitions etc. Furthermore, office itself has reported on the completion certificate, dated 13-6-2005 that the notices' were not issued as the appellant had not provided the fresh addresses nor the process fee.

4. In view of the above, this Court has no option but to dismiss this appeal.

M.B.A./C-89/LAppeal.dismissed.