Syed Sameer Abbas Zaidi V Commissioner Inland Revenue, RTO, Islamabad.

 

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INLAND REVENUE, DIVISION BENCH-I,

ISLAMABAD

MA (Stay) Interim No.1513/IB/2026

ITA (Interim) No.1334/IB/2026

(Tax Year 2020)

*******

 

Syed Sameer Abbas Zaidi; Sohrab Plaza, Block-32, Fazal-e-Haq Road, Embassy Road, Islamabad.		Applicant
	Vs
Commissioner Inland Revenue, RTO, Islamabad.		Respondent
Appellant By:		Mr. Waqas Ahmed, ACA
Respondent By:		Mr. Siraj Muhammad, DR
Date of Hearing:		29.09.2026
Date of Order:		29.09.2026

ORDER

M. M. AKRAM (JUDICIAL MEMBER): This interim appeal, along with the accompanying miscellaneous application for stay, has been filed by the appellant challenging the order dated June 30, 2026 passed by the learned DCIR (Withholding Tax), RTO, Islamabad on the grounds as set forth in the memo of appeal/application.

2.      The facts of the case are that the appellant-taxpayer, being aggrieved by the order passed under section 161 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 (“the Ordinance”), preferred an appeal before the learned Commissioner Inland Revenue (Appeals) [“CIR(A)”] and, along with the appeal, also filed an application seeking interim relief. Both the appeal as well as the application for interim relief are stated to be pending adjudication before the learned CIR(A). During the pendency of the said proceedings, the appellant instituted the present appeal before this Tribunal against the very same impugned order, ostensibly with the object of securing interim relief. It was submitted that the office of the learned CIR(A) was in the process of shifting its premises and, therefore, was unable to take up the appeal and the accompanying application for interim relief.

3.      The case was fixed for hearing before this Tribunal on 29.09.2026. At the outset, the learned Authorized Representative (AR) for the appellant was confronted with the maintainability of the present appeal, particularly in view of the fact that an appeal against the same impugned order was already pending before the learned CIR(A), and was also asked to explain the jurisdiction of this Tribunal to entertain the second appeal and grant interim relief in the circumstances. The learned AR was unable to furnish any plausible or legally tenable explanation and ultimately requested that the present appeal be permitted to be withdrawn.

4.      We have heard the learned AR and perused the record. The undisputed position is that the appellant had already challenged the impugned order before the learned CIR(A), where the appeal is presently pending. The appellant also filed an application seeking interim relief before the same authority, which has yet to be adjudicated. Notwithstanding the pendency of both proceedings, the appellant has instituted the present appeal before this Tribunal against the very same impugned order, ostensibly for the purpose of obtaining interim relief.

5.      At the outset, the learned AR was confronted with the maintainability of the present proceedings and was asked to identify the statutory provision under which a second appellate proceeding against the same impugned order could simultaneously be pursued before this Tribunal while the first appeal against that very order remains pending before the learned CIR(A). The learned AR was unable to point out any such provision or furnish any legally tenable explanation and ultimately requested withdrawal of the appeal.

6.      The approach adopted by the appellant cannot be endorsed. In M. Tariq Proprietor, Rawalpindi v. Commissioner Inland Revenue, Zone-II, RTO, Rawalpindi (2020 PTD 2189), this Tribunal considered the question whether two parallel remedies could be availed simultaneously on the same cause against the same impugned order and deprecated the pursuit of parallel remedies in respect of the same subject matter and relief. We are conscious, however, of the judgment of the Hon'ble Islamabad High Court in Pak Gulf Construction (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Commissioner Inland Revenue (2016 PTD 1061), wherein it was held that an appeal against a separate and independent order of the CIR(A) refusing interim relief may be maintainable before the Tribunal notwithstanding pendency of the substantive appeal before the CIR(A). The ratio of the said judgment does not assist the appellant in the facts presently before us. In the instant case, there is no order of the learned CIR(A) refusing or otherwise deciding the application for interim relief against which the appellant has approached this Tribunal. On the contrary, both the substantive appeal against the amended assessment order and the application for interim relief remain pending before the learned CIR(A). Thus, the present appeal is not directed against any separate appellate order passed by the learned CIR(A); rather, it constitutes a second proceeding against the very same amended assessment order which is already the subject matter of a pending first appeal.

7.      The mere fact that the office of the learned CIR(A) is undergoing a change of premises, or that there may be temporary administrative difficulty in taking up the matter, cannot by itself create a concurrent appellate jurisdiction in this Tribunal or justify bypassing the statutory appellate hierarchy. If the appellant considered itself prejudiced by delay in the disposal of its application for interim relief, it was open to it to pursue such remedy as may be available in law; however, such administrative circumstance cannot furnish a legal basis for instituting a parallel appeal against the same impugned order.

8.      In these circumstances, we find that the present proceedings, as instituted, are not maintainable as a parallel remedy to the appeal already pending before the learned CIR(A). The learned AR has also failed to demonstrate any lawful basis for maintaining the present appeal and, after the matter was confronted to him, has expressly sought permission to withdraw the same. Consequently, the withdrawal request is accepted, and the present appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. The interim application is also accordingly disposed of. However, it is clarified that nothing contained in this order shall prejudice the appellant's pending appeal or application for interim relief before the learned CIR(A), which shall be dealt with by the competent authority strictly in accordance with law. 

 

 

-SD-   (MUHAMMAD NAEEM ASHRAF) MEMBER

-SD- (M.M. AKRAM) JUDICIAL MEMBER