ZAFAR ASLAM KHAN, PESHAWAR vs COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, ZONE-SOUTH, RTO, ISLAMABAD R

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

ZAFAR ASLAM KHAN, PESHAWAR VS COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, ZONE-SOUTH, RTO, ISLAMABAD R. 77---Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001), S. 131---Appeal before the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue, filing of---Handwritten signature of appellant, requirement of---Scope---Electronically scanned signature of appellant---Propriety---Appellant/a non-resident individual (residing abroad at relevant time) authorized a Charted Accountants Firm as his Authorized Representative (AR) to file the appeal on his behalf transmitting electronically scanned signature for the purpose of preparing Power of Attorney ('POA') and allied documents---Validity---In accordance with S.131 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 ('the Ordinance, 2001'), an aggrieved person may file an appeal against an order in the manner prescribed under R. 77 of the Income Tax Rules, 2002 ('the Rules, 2002')---As per the provisions of R. 77 of the Rules, 2002, appeals before the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue ('Tribunal') must be physically filed using the prescribed form---Thus, no mechanism for electronic filing is (currently) provided under the Ordinance, 2001 or the Rules, 2002---Rule 77 of the Rules, 2002, while specifying the form and procedure for filing an appeal, requires the appeal to be signed and verified by the appellant of an Authorized Representative, emphasizing physical filing, as no electronic filing mechanism exists---Scanned signatures are merely reproductions of original signatures and do not equate to physical/ manual signatures---The requirement for personal signing by the appellant or Authorized Representative calls into question the authenticity and validity of appeals submitted with scanned signatures---Similarly, scanned signatures lack the level of authenticity associated with handwritten signatures, which raises further concerns about compliance---Doctrine of Substantial Compliance in procedural matters left no alternative for Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue but to dismiss the appeal on the grounds that it was not filed by the appellant or an Authorized Representative---Application for condonation of delay was dismissed---Appeal was dismissed, was circumstances.

ZAFAR ASLAM KHAN, PESHAWAR vs COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, ZONE-SOUTH, RTO, ISLAMABAD R — 2026 PTD 150 INLAND REVENUE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL OF PAKISTAN

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 PTD