MUHAMMAD ASLAM Versus COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE Hassan Askari Kazmi , Malik Muhammad Aslam
ORDER
This Reference application under Section 133 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as "Ordinance" ) stems from order dated 13.01.2026 whereby Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue (Division Bench-II), Islamabad (hereinafter referred to as "Tribunal" ) proceeded to dismiss appeal preferred by the applicant, holding the same as barred by time.
2. Since the appeal of the applicant has been dismissed on the sole ground of limitation so without touching any other aspect of the case, we would like to confine ourselves to the moot point.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned counsel representing the respondents' department.
4. Section 129 of the "Ordinance" deals with decision in appeal. In terms of subsection (4) of Section 129 of the "Ordinance" it is obligatory for the Commissioner (Appeals) to serve his order on the appellant or the Commissioner as the case may be. Section 131 of the "Ordinance" provides limitation for preferring appeal before the "Tribunal" , which reads as under:
131. Appeal to the Appellate Tribunal (1) Subject to section 126A, any person, other than an SOE, aggrieved by any order passed by an officer of Inland Revenue or Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or the Board under this Ordinance or the rules made thereunder may, within thirty days of the receipt of such order prefer an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal or, as the case may be, a reference to the High Court:
Underlining supplied for emphasizes
From the perusal of above referred provision of law it is manifestly clear that limitation for preferring appeal before the "Tribunal" would start running from the receipt of the order.
5. Section 218 of the "Ordinance" prescribes modes of service of notice and other documents. For the ease of reference, same is reproduced below:‑
218. Service of notices and other documents.--- (1) Subject to this Ordinance, any notice, order or requisition required to be served on a resident individual (other than in a representative capacity) for the purposes of this Ordinance shall be treated as properly served on the individual if
(a) personally served on the individual or, in the case of an individual under a legal disability or a non-resident individual, the representative of the individual;
(b) sent by registered post or courier service to the place specified in clause (b) (of subsection (2)] or to the individual's usual or last known address in Pakistan;
(c) served on the individual in the manner prescribed for service of a summons under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908) [; or]
(d) served on the individual electronically in the prescribed manner.
Similarly, Rule 74 of the Income Tax Rules, 2002 also caters the issue which too is reproduced below:
74. Service of documents electronically.- (1) This rule applies for the purposes of the service of documents under the Ordinance or these rules.
[(2) Where a person has provided an electronic address, the document required to be served on the person shall be considered sufficiently served if sent to that address]
(3) For the purposes of sub-rule (2), a document is considered sent to an electronic address if the sender receives-
(a) in the case of a message sent to a facsimile number, confirmation from the sending facsimile machine that the transmission is sent;
(b) in the case of a message sent to an electronic mail address, confirmation from the server of the recipient that the message has been received [; and]
[(c) from the Board a digitally signed e-mail acknowledging the receipt of Electronic Income Tax Return [or electronic withholding tax statement.]. ]
(4) In this rule- (a) "document" means any notice, order or requisition under the Ordinance; and
(b) "electronic address" means a facsimile number or electronic mail address.
6. After having an overview of the provisions noted above, we are of the considered view that the order appealed before the "Tribunal" was not served properly to the applicant as such the "Tribunal" has erred in law while dismissing the appeal, holding the same barred by time. As a result thereof, we are inclined to allow this reference application and set aside the impugned order. As a sequel whereof, appeal preferred by the applicant shall be deemed pending before the "Tribunal" who shall decide the same afresh on merits as per law.
7. Office shall transmit copy of this order under the seal of the Court to the "Tribunal" in terms of Section 133(8) of the "Ordinance" .
MQ/M-56/L Reference allowed.