APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INLAND REVENUE, DIVISION BENCH-I ISLAMABAD
ITA No.1989/IB/2024
MA(Cond.) No.328/IB/2024
MA(Stay) No.1469/IB/2024
(Tax Year, 2018)
********
O R D E R
M. M. AKRAM (JUDICIAL MEMBER): The titled appeal, along
with miscellaneous applications for condonation of delay in filing the appeal
and a stay, has been filed by the appellant taxpayer on December 13, 2024, as a
first appeal under Section 131 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 ("the
Ordinance"). This appeal challenges the Impugned Order dated May 20, 2024,
issued by the Office of Inland Revenue, Unit-I, Zone South, RTO Islamabad, for
the tax year 2018, based on the grounds outlined in the memo of appeal.
2. The relevant facts indicate that the taxpayer, an individual,
filed an electronic return of income for the tax year under consideration,
declaring an income of Rs. 9,285,590. This return was deemed an original
assessment under Section 120(1) of the Ordinance. However, the Federal Board of
Revenue, exercising its powers under Section 214C of the Ordinance, selected
the taxpayer’s case for audit, with intimation provided via the IRIS system. A
notice under Section 177(1) was issued on October 15, 2020, requiring
compliance by October 27, 2020. On the due date, neither did the taxpayer
appear nor was any application for adjournment submitted. Subsequently, a
notice under Section 122(9) was issued on November 10, 2020, with compliance
required by November 21, 2020. Again, no response was received on the specified
date. A further notice under Section 111(1) was issued on September 12, 2023,
requiring compliance by September 18, 2023, followed by several reminders
issued on different dates. In response, the taxpayer submitted an online reply
on March 15, 2024, along with supporting documents, which were found
unsatisfactory. Consequently, an order under Section 122(1) of the Ordinance
was passed on May 20, 2024. Feeling aggrieved by this order, the appellant has
now approached this Tribunal, challenging the impugned order on multiple
grounds.
3. The case was taken up for hearing on December 17,
2024. At the very outset, the learned Authorized Representative (AR) for the
appellant was confronted with the issue that the appeal, along with the
miscellaneous applications, had been filed using an electronically scanned
signature of the appellant, which is not permissible under the law. According
to the prescribed procedure, the appeal must be filed by the appellant
personally, bearing their handwritten signature and verification; otherwise, it
cannot be considered properly filed by the aggrieved person. In response, the
learned AR explained that the appellant is a non-resident, currently residing
abroad and rendering services outside Pakistan for several years. The appellant
had authorized the AR to file the appeal on their behalf.
4. We have carefully considered the arguments advanced
by the learned Authorized Representative (AR) for the appellant and reviewed
the available record. The maintainability of the appeal under the provisions of
Section 131 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, read with Rule 77 of the Income
Tax Rules, 2002, hinges on compliance with procedural requirements, including
the proper signing of the appeal documents. In accordance with Section 131 of
the Ordinance, an aggrieved person may file an appeal against an order in the
manner prescribed under Rule 77 of the Income Tax Rules, 2002. As per the
relevant legal provisions, appeals before the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue
(ATIR) must be physically filed using the prescribed form. No mechanism
for electronic filing is currently provided under the Ordinance or the
associated rules. Consequently, the use of scanned signatures raises questions
of compliance for the following reasons:
1. Legal
Requirements for Filing Appeals.
o Rule 77 of the Income Tax Rules, 2002, specifies the form and procedure
for filing an appeal.
o This rule requires the appeal to be signed and verified by the appellant
or an authorized representative, emphasizing physical filing, as no electronic
filing mechanism exists.
2. Scanned
Signatures vs. Physical Signatures.
o Scanned signatures are merely reproductions of original signatures and
do not equate to physical, manual signatures.
o The requirement for personal signing by the appellant or authorized
representative calls into question the authenticity and validity of appeals
submitted with scanned signatures.
3. Authentication
and Verification.
o Scanned signatures lack the level of authenticity associated with
handwritten signatures, which raises further concerns about compliance.
5. Moreover, it is noted that
the appeal was not filed within the prescribed time. The appellant submitted an
application for condonation of delay along with an affidavit. However, both the
application and the affidavit bear scanned signatures of the appellant.
Additionally, the Power of Attorney (POA) annexed with the appeal, which
is also signed using a scanned signature, does not explicitly authorize M/s EY
Ford Rhodes to file the appeal on behalf of the appellant. The contents of the
POA are reproduced as follows:
“POWER OF ATTORNEY
I, Zafar Aslam Khan, holder of CNIC No.61101-7921075-1, do hereby
authorize M/s EY Ford Rodes, Chartered Accountants to represent me before the Honorable
Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue (ATIR), Islamabad in respect of the stay and
appeal proceedings for the tax year 2018, present written and verbal arguments,
and collect the appellate order on our behalf.
Date: Nil
Witnesses: Signature Scanned signature
1.
Handwritten signature Name: Zafar Aslam Khan
2.
Handwritten signature”
While the POA authorizes M/s EY Ford Rhodes to represent the appellant,
engage in proceedings, present arguments, and collect the appellate order, it
does not expressly empower them to file an appeal. Filing an appeal is a
distinct legal act and must be explicitly authorized in the POA.
6. Additionally, it is noted
that the appellant, being a non-resident, is currently out of the country.
Despite this, the POA is signed by two witnesses and attested/authenticated by
Mr. Tariq Iqbal Maher, Notary Public, Islamabad. This raises concerns regarding
procedural propriety and adherence to legal standards. While courts generally
consider the Doctrine of Substantial Compliance in procedural matters, the observations,
in this case, leave no alternative but to dismiss the appeal on the grounds
that it was not filed by the appellant or an authorized representative. Order
accordingly.
|
|
-SD-
|
-SD-
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment