' SH. AZMAT SAEED, J.---This appeal under section 136(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 is directed against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 29-10-1999.
2. Brief facts for adjudication of the matter are that aggrieved by an assessment order the appellant filed an appeal under section 132 of the , Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 before the respondent No,2 which was dismissed as being time-barred vide order dated 17-11-1998. Aggrieved the appellant filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal which also failed to find favour and was dismissed vide the impugned order dated 29-10-1999.
3. The learned counsel for the parties have been heard and the record perused.
4. In the instant case the order of assessment was served upon the Authorized Representative of the appellant and period of computation of limitation was determined by the respondent No,2 from the date of the alleged service of the assessment order upon the said Authorized Representative.
An appeal to respondent No, 2 was filed under section 129 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. The limitation thereof was prescribed under section 130(2) of the said Ordinance, which is 30 days from the date of service of the assessme nt or penalty in question. Section 85 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 specifically provides that any assessment or order under the Ordinance shall be served upon the assessee or any other person liable to pay such tax on behalf of the assessee. An Authorized Representative is neither the assessee nor liable to pay tax on behalf of the assessee, therefore, service on an Authorized Representative is not service in terms of section 85 of the Ordinance, 1979 and the period of time would not commence from service of such assessment order upon an Authorized Representative. Thus, in the circumstances where assessment had not been served upon the appellant or any other person liable to pay tax on his behalf the period of limitation would not commence, therefore, the appeal had erroneously been held to be barred by limitation. We have no hesitation to accept this appeal and hold in the facts and circumstances of the case that the appeal filed by the appellant before respondent No,2 was not barred by limitation. The appeal is accepted in the above terms.