Find a Lawyer

COMMISSIONER (LEGAL DIVISION) versus N.D.F.C.

Appointed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, section 136 and 23 (1) (vii), the High Court Applicant / Department filed a reference before the Tribunal under Section 136 (1) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, He has been asked to refer to this question. The High Court Office of the Tribunal, which was inadvertently dealt with the petition, stated that the request was not resolved for a long period of hearing on the basis of the income tax appeal, the tribunal asserted that the petitioner / department Refusing to cite the question posed by the source, it would require many changes. In addition to the law, the facts and matters of the case, which were pending for more than seven years during the application period of the reference, were the tribunal's unreasonable verdict equivalent to punishing the applicant for wrongdoing on the tribunal as it confessed. It has been held that the appeal of the Income Tax was erroneously referred to by the Tribunal Office as a mistake in the conduct of the reference, not by the applicant, and the Court under section 136 (1) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 The Tribunal could either refer the proposed question to the High Court for wrongdoing or dismiss it on that basis. I was not born a question of law. Or on the basis that the request was timely imposed, no other order could be passed by the tribunal under section 136 (1) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 which the Tribunal passed, in these circumstances The ordinance was against the provisions of section 136 of 1979. The situation, however, was not factual in the question posed by the applicant law firms from Akhora Khattak lawyer