MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, J.--This is a case stated by the Lahore Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal at the instance of Commissioner of Income Tax and Wealth Tax, Faisalabad. The following questions of law have been framed for our consideration and reply:--
(i) "Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in rejecting the department's appeal for non-filing of certified copies of impugned order by observing it as non-compliance of ITAT Rules."
(ii) "Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in rejecting the department's appeal without providing an opportunity to the department to make up the deficiency, if any, observed/found by the Income Tax Tribunal."
2. After hearing the learned counsel, we will agree at the outset that the issue in hand already stands resolved in favour of the petitioner/Revenue by a Division Bench of this Court in re: CIT v.
Muhammad Tariq Javaid 2000 PTD 2165. In that case, it was inter alia, held that Rule 11 of the ITAT Rules, 1981 had an independent status having no nexus with Order XLI, Rule 1 of C.P.C. Also that in matters of collection of Revenue the disputes could not be allowed to be determined in a perfunctory manner as had been done by the Tribunal. In another recent judgment in re: Pakistan Industrial Gases Ltd. v. CIT and another 2000 PTD 2903 another Division Bench of this Court disapproved the dismissal of appeal by the Tribunal for the reason that memo. of appeal contained argumentative grounds which was violative of rule 10 of the said rules.
3. For the various reasons recorded in C.T.R. No, 89/93, in which the issue in hand has been dealt with at length in the light of the aforesaid two judgments, we will return a negative answer to the questions. Resultantly, the appeal filed by the Revenue shall be deemed pending before the