NASIM SIKANDAR, J.- The Lahore Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal at the instance of the assessee a Private Limited Company deriving income from publication of newspaper has referred the following questions of law said to have arisen out of a consolidated order recorded on 23.10.1983 by the Tribunal for the assessment year 1975-76.
(i) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, was justified in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) whereby he had dismissed the assessee's appeal in limine as being barred by time?
(ii) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal should have modified or vacated the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for the reason that even if the assessee was not represented before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on the date of hearing. He was obliged under sub-section (3) of Section 130 of the Ordinance to allow the assessee a further opportunity of being heard.
If he intended to dismiss the appeal as barred by time?
2. The facts in brief are that the assessee filed an appeal before CIT (Appeals) against the assessm ent order dated 25.9.1983 framed for the year 1975-76. According to the order of the CIT (Appeals), dated 21.12.1985, the petitioner failed to put in appearance despite proper service on 3.12.1985. Also he noted that the appeal before him was barred by one day. The Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal refused to show indulgence after observing at the record supported the findings of the CIT (Appeals) that notice for hearing was properly served upon the assessee and secondly that the appeal filed by the assessee was barred by one day.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner in terms of statement of the case claims that the Tribunal ought to have modified or vacated the order of the CIT (Appeals) on the ground that the assessee was not allowed reasonable opportunity of explaining the delay. The contention as couched in at question No. 2 is necessarily misplaced.
According to the findings of fact as recorded by the Tribunal, the petitioner was properly served for the date of hearing obviously no separate notice was reduced to confront the assessee that its appeal was barred by limitation All the moreso when no application for condonation of delay was made before the Commissioner nor any excuse had been put up before him. in absence of an explanation coming forth on the record, as rightly found by the Tribunal, Commissioner Appeals was well within his domain to reject the appeal as barred by limitation. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not cited either any provision of law or enouncement of this Court that a forum exercising judicial or quas-judicial functions is required to confront his petitioner of a natural consequence of the default made on the part of his of his petitioner or appellant.
Accordingly our answer to both the questions is in the affirmative.