C.I.R. (LEGAL DIVISION) R.T.O., RAWALPINDI versus TARIQ MEHMOOD
Sections 221, 121 and 111 (1) (b) error correction The second miscellaneous application to the finding of facts claims that the appellate tribunal was the last axis of the determination of fact finding. And the fact that was in fact and in fact should be determined by the fact that the taxpayers claimed that the department had to produce a record in support of their version. Failure to submit the record at the time of the appeal and the decision of the First Amendment by the Department resulted in a finding that could have been incorrect but accurate according to the records available at the time, had reached the limit. The appeal of the Second Amendment was not to change the destiny of the appeal. This could be the only way if the department would prefer to go to the High Court and provide another opportunity for the preparation of evidence / records. When this decision is not challenged, it will reach the final evenly and uniformly. And the correction can be found only by floating error at the record level or at the relevant time of the appellate tribunal's decision on the accuracy, neither the office note was presented by the department nor the evidence-based order. I was wrong. The appellate tribunal or court presented at that time faced the same opportunity for either party to prove its prescription, if any of the parties failed at its turn, they had the opportunity The bar could not be afforded and it was a proper remedy for the various requests for correction. The scope of the appeal decision is very limited in order to submit the order before the High Court and if there is an opportunity to present evidence that cannot be presented for any reason.
