Find a Lawyer

ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN LTD., AZAD KASHMIR BRANCHES, MIRPUR versus INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AJK COUNCIL, MUZAFFARABAD

Section 134 (5) Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1981, RRL 1, 15 & 7 Issue No notice for submission of fee to AJK Registrar Appellate Tribunal instead of Azad Jammu and Kashmir Gave. Azad Jammu and Kashmir Appellate Tribunal, AJ&K, dismissed the appeal on the basis that the appeal fee was not paid in the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Treasury before filing an appeal as it was filed under section 134 of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979 ( 5) Under the legal requirements. The SC / Appellant claimed that there was no doubt, in section 134 (5) of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979, that the word would be used but no penalty was provided for the violation of the said clause, so only the word On the basis of this, it cannot be considered that it is a mandatory supply of law but it is a directory of the law and the assessee / appellant for the provision of default approval of Coral Section 134 (5) of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979 The developer cannot be fined. d shall not be construed as a mandatory provision of the law but it was in the nature of Rule 11 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules 1981, the appeal fee should not be included with the appeal memo. In addition, the Registrar or Officer authorized under R7 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules 1981 may return it to the appellant or its authorized representative so that it may comply with the rules set forth within this time. In accordance with Rule 15, it also supports the argument that Article 134 (5) of the Ordinance was a provision of the law and was not mandatory because it suggested that if the memorandum of appeal was not necessarily accompanied, the documents patent advocate from Bewal lawyer