ABDUL AZIZ KHAN NIAZI vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN (THE CHAIRMAN, CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE), GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD and 3 others

' The Income Tax Officer, Circle 29, Islamabad, vide his order, dated 19-9-1991, rejected the declared version of the assessee/petitioner in regard to the income derived by the petitioner for the period from 30-6-1986 to 30-6-1990 and imposed a tax of Rs,32 lacs approximately, including additions under section 13(1)(a) and under section 88 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Islamabad, vide his order, dated 12-11-1991 dismissed the petitioner's appeal and confirmed the assessm ents made by the Income Tax Officer. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Islamabad Bench, Islamabad, vide its order, dated 11-10-1992 rejected the appeals of the petitioner and confirmed the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. Hence this Constitutional petition.

2. The petition is still at the motion stage which is admitted to regular hearing with the consent of both the learned counsel for the parties and the main petition is being taken up for hearing as short point is involved in this Constitutional petition.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the Government of Pakistan.

' The impugned order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has been challenged on the ground that the petitioner has been condemned unheard and it was the petitioner's first appearance without counsel and he was not allowed time to engage a counsel and it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order is not a speaking order. The learned Tribunal has not applied its mind to the facts and controversies involved in the subject-matter and without giving any reasons of its own has confirmed the orders of the Courts below.

4. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I have gone through the impugned order of the Appellate Tribunal. The submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner are not without force. In the first five paragraphs, the worthy Tribunal has narrated the previous history of the case and the reasons adopted by the Income Tax Officer and by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner for rejecting the declared version of the assessee/petitioner and in para. 6 of the impugned order, it is narrated that the petitioner has once again repeated the same old story before it and in the concluding paragraph No,7, it has been held as follows:--- "We have heard his arguments, examined all the facts of the case and evidence that he has led before us. We are of the considered opinion that all these appeals have no substance whatsoever.

We accordingly reject them on both the points in each year and confirm the order of the AA.C."

5. From the abovementioned, it is clear that the Tribunal has not given any reasons of its own while rejecting petitioner's appeals. In Sohail Jute Mills Ltd. And others v. Federation of Pakistan and others (PLD 1991 SC 329), it was held that even the departmental officers are expected to write the relevant basis for forming an opinion, whereas, in the instant case, the order has been passed by the highest Tribunal on the Income Tax side which is required to give reasons for rejecting or accepting any appeal which comes before it, in accordance with law. It may be mentioned here, that the petitioner has shown his. Bona fides by paying approximately Rs,20 lacs as tax under the impugned orders.

6. The learned Standing Counsel has not been able to seriously oppose this petition. He has not conceded to the merits of the case viz, liability of the petitioner to pay tax as per the orders by the Income Tax Officer, however, he has frankly admitted that the Appellate Tribunal while passing the impugned order has failed to record its reasons for rejecting the petitioner's appeals.

7. For the reasons mentioned above, it is held that the impugned order, dated 11-10-1992 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Islamabad Bench, Islamabad, is not a speaking order and the said order is set aside and the case is remanded back to the Tribunal which shall decide petitioner's appeals afresh on merits after giving him an opportunity of being heard and shall record the reasons for deciding the petitioner's appeals one way or the other.