COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/WEALTH TAX, COMPANIES ZONE-III, LAHORE

ORDER

' By this single order we propose to decide Income Tax Appeal No,385 of 1998 titled "Commissioner of Income Tax/Wealth Tax v. Idara-i-Kissan", Income Tax Appeal No,386 of 1998 titled "Commissioner of Income Tax/Wealth Tax v. Idara-i-Kissan", Income Tax Appeal No, 387 of 1998 titled "Commissioner of Income Tax/Wealth Tax v. Idara-i-Kissan", Income Tax Appeal No, 388 of 1998 titled "Commissioner of Income. Tax/Wealth Tax v. Idara-i-Kissan" and. Income Tax Appeal No,389 of 1998 titled "Commissioner of Income Tax/Wealth Tax v. Idara-i-Kissan" as common questions of law and fact are involved in all these five appeals.

2. The assessee is a Society registered under the Societies Act, 1860, for the purpose of improving dairy productions. The respondent being a charitable institution claimed exemption in respect of assessm ents for the years 1990-91 to 1994-95. Claim of exemption of the respondent was not accepted by the Assessing Officer. The order of the Assessing Officer was maintained in appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax/Appellate Authority. The partial relief was, however, allowed with regard to the disallowance of profit and loss accounts. The Revenue challenged the order to the extent of relief granted by the Commissioner of Income Tax/Wealth Tax Appeals Zone- III, Lahore. Memorandum of appeal was not framed and drafted according to the provisions of Rule 10 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1981. Memorandum of appeal was lacking the necessary information of setting forth concisely under distinct head the specific grounds of appeal in a narrative manner. Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal considering the grounds of appeal being vague and not in accordance with the Rules ibid, rejected the appeals vide order dated 4-5- 1998. Hence these appeals.

3. Appellant through the instant appeals has raised the following questions of law statedly having arisen out of the judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal:--- "(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified to dismiss departmental appeal only for the reason that the grounds of appeal framed do not comply with the provisions of Rule 10 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1981?

(2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified to dismiss the departmental appeal for violating rule 10 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, whereas the procedure prescribed under rule 15 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules was not followed by it at the time of presentation of the memorandum of appeal?"

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that in case the memorandum of appeal was not in conformity with the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1981 the right course was to return the memorandum of appeal to the appellant with the permission to bring it in conformity with the Rules. The learned Appellate Tribunal has illegally proceeded to reject the appeals without granting the appellant opportunity in terms of Rule 15 of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1981.

5. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and examined the record.

6. It is settled law that if the law prescribes a particular manner and procedure in which the things are required to be done, the same must A be done that way or not at all. If any case-law is needed, reference can be made to the cases of PLD 1997 Lah. 692, PLD 1997 Lah. 1 and PLD 1999 Pesh.

33. Admittedly in the instant case the memorandum of appeal is not in conformity with Rule 10 ibid. Rule 15 provides for return of the memorandum of appeal for refiling the same after bringing it in conformity with the provisions of these Rules within such time as may be fixed. Rule 15 empowers the Registrar or such other Authorized Officer for returning of appeal to the appellant or any authorized representative, if any, to bring it in conformity with the provisions of the Rules. The word used is "may return it to the appellant" which signifies B that the Registrar has the option either to fix the appeal before the Bench or return it to the appellant for refilling after bringing the appeal in conformity with the Rules. The appellant has made no effort to see whether the appeal is filed according to the Rules or not. It was fixed before the Bench, and met the consequence of rejection/dismissal being not in conformity with the Rules. The Registrar is vested with the power to return the appeal and if it was not returned, it came up for hearing before the. Tribunal. The learned Bench of ITAT rejected the appeals. The powers under Rule 15 vests with the Registrar and not with the Tribunal to return the memorandum of appeal. The learned Tribunal has rightly rejected the appeals on the ground that the appeals were not in conformity with the Rules. We do not see any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. The aforementioned questions of law are answered accordingly. All the five appeals are dismissed as such and the proposed questions are answered accordingly.