Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: CENTRAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., KARACHI VS Respondent: C.I.R., ZONE-III, LTU, KARACHI
2017 P T D (Trib.) 2013 [Inland Revenue Appellate Tribunal] Before Muhammad Jawed Zakaria, Judicial Member and Faheemul Haque Khan, Accountant Member Messrs CENTRAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., KARACHI Versus C.I.R., ZONE-III, LTU, KARACHI M.A. (Rect.) No.258/KB of 2012 in I.T.A. No.761/KB of 2011, decided on 24th November, 2014. Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)--- ----S. 221---Remand of case by the Appellate Tribunal---Rectification of order of Appellate Tribunal---Application was filed by the taxpayer under S.221 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, seeking rectification of impugned order passed by the Appellate Tribunal whereby case was remanded to the appellate authority---Submission of taxpayer was that, Appellate Tribunal due to oversight had not given any findings relating to two grounds of appeal---Tribunal had remanded the case to be decided by the appellate authority on all issues/grounds---Order of the Tribunal would be deem to be applicable to said two grounds---No mistake was apparent from the record as the Tribunal had remanded the case to the appellate authority which was still pending before the said Authority---Despite lapse of more than 2-1/2 years, the issues were pending before appellate authority which was deprecated---Unnecessary delay by the appellate authority, was against the National Judicial Policy, which spoke about speedy and meaningful disposal of the cases---Appellate authority was directed by Tribunal to pass the order within 45 days of the receipt of present order after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. Mohsin Waheed, ACA for Applicant. Tariq Hussain, D.R. for Respondent. Date of hearing: 20th November, 2014. ORDER MUHAMMAD JAWED ZAKARIA (JUDICIAL MEMBER).---The instant Miscellaneous Application has been filed by the applicant/taxpayer under section 221 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, seeking rectification in the impugned order bearing I.T.A. No.761/KB/2011 dated 7.05.2012 passed by this Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue whereby the case was remanded back to the CIR (A). 2. On the date of hearing, Mr. Mohsin Ahmed, ACA appeared on behalf of the applicant/taxpayer while Mr. Tariq Hussain Shaikh, learned DR represented the Department/respondent. 3. Learned AR of the taxpayer submitted that the Tribunal due to oversight has not given any findings relating to grounds Nos. 2 and 3 for the tax year 2007. The grounds are reproduced as under:-- "2. That the learned Commissioner (Appeals) grievously erred in upholding a disallowance of Rs.2,395,999/- for allegedly non-deduction of withholding taxes from commission expenses whereas no such payment was made during the year. 3. That the learned Commissioner (Appeals) was not justified in upholding the disallowance upto Rs.469,450/- [as against of Rs.500,350/-] wrongly disallowed in the order under section 122(4)(5)] relating to claim on account of amortization of computer software. 4. The learned counsel for the Applicant therefore, prayed that necessary rectification may be made in the order of the Tribunal mentioned supra. 5. The learned D.R., on the other hand, opposed the rectification application. 6. We have heard the learned representatives of both the parties and have gone through the records of the case and order of the Tribunal dated 07.05.2012. 7. From perusal of the order we have found that the Tribunal vide its order dated 7.5.2012 remanded the case back to the learned CIR (A) with the following observations:-- We find force in the contentions of the learned counsel for the Appellant and remand the case back to the CIR (A) to decide the issues before him after giving an opportunity of being heard to the appellant. Consequently, the appeal of the Taxpayer stands disposed of in the manner indicated above. (Under lining and bold is for emphasising) 8. From perusal of the above findings it is unequivocally clear that the learned Tribunal has remanded the case to be decided by the learned CIR(A) on all issues/(grounds) and order of the Tribunal would deem to be applied on grounds Nos. 2 and 3 too. Therefore, there is no mistake apparent from the record as the Tribunal has remanded the case back to the learned CIR(A). 9. Further perusal of the Order of the Tribunal further reveals that the Tribunal has remanded back the case to the learned CIR(A) vide its order dated 7.5.2012 which is still pending before him [CIR(A)]. Despite lapse of more than 2 and half years the issues are pending before him which is highly deprecated. We with great concern would observe that the Government functionary including taxing officer/CIR\CIR(A) henceforth is to work hand in hand with the judiciary to usher in an age of the speedy and meaninful justice delivery systems in our beloved and beautiful country to remove the adage "JUSTICE DELAYED IS JUSTICE DENIED" from the Pakistan Judicial system. Early and meaningful speedy disposal of pending appeals will bring some relief to the taxpayers and may also stop unnecessary deferment of revenue. In this way CIR (A) may protect and safeguard the interest of both taxpayer as well as of revenue, delay in dispensation of justice dispensed with and at times makes it worthless. Facts and conduct of appeal shows deliberately contribute to the delay. 10. We may further observe that the arrears of tax cases pending at the level of Income-tax authorities including CIR(A) are so staggering that they make a taxpayer almost despondent. Anyone subscribing to the belief that justice delayed is justice denied, is bound to feel seriously concerned at the time taken before a case is disposed of at the CIR(A) level or before the tax authorities. One of the essential requisites of good tax administration is that the disputes between the taxpayer and the revenue should be settled, and finally decided, with the minimum of delay. The unnecessary delay by the learned CIR(A) is against the National Judicial Policy announced by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan which speaks about speedy and meaningful disposal of the cases. It is incumbent upon the CIR(A) that the order may not further be delayed. The learned CIR(A) is directed to pass the order within 45 (Forty five) days of the receipt of this order after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. 11. Resultantly, the application stands disposed of as above. HBT/159/Tax(Trib.) Case remanded.