' SYED MUHAMMAD JAMIL RAZA ZAIDI (JUDICIAL MEMBER).---This appeal has been filed against the order of the Commissioner Inland Revenue (Appeals-III), Karachi dated 30-9-2010 whereby the learned Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeals on the ground that the same is barred by time by two and half years.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant challenges the validity of the Department order before the learned Ombudsman who accepted the application of the appellant and declared the Departmental action as maladministration, however, the Department challenged the said order before the President of Pakistan and the President accepted the Government's appeal by holding that the Ombudsman did not have the powers to interfere with the Departmental application. This order of the Ombudsman was challenged through Constitutional Petition and order of the President was confirmed by the High Court and by the Supreme Court. Being aggrieved the appellant filed appeal against the Departmental order before the Commissioner (Appeals) by making the request to condone the time on the ground he has been legitimately pursuing his case before Ombudsman and subsequently before the courts of competent jurisdiction. However, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) did not agree with his point of view and rejected the appeal as being time barred. Hence the present appeal.
3. Messrs Kamal Hassan Siddiqui, Advocate and Muhammad Ilyas, Advocate, both represented the appellant/taxpayer while none appeared on behalf of the Department. Therefore, the appeal is decided ex parte on its merits.
4. The learned AR of the appellant/taxpayer heard and the case record has been examined. The applicant has filed an application for condonation of delay by stating that he has been legitimately following his case before the courts of competent jurisdiction. It is a well-established principle of law that where a person has been pursuing his case in a different forums believing that his action is within the framework of law, he become entitled for condonation of delay when these proceedings form irregularity or lacking jurisdiction. This case comes out of a similar situation where the applicant has been following his case and pursuing remedies as provided under different circumstances. Hence he has genuine cause for getting condonation of delay by filing this appeal. Keeping in view the long line of adjudication before the parties and believing the intention of the appellant that he has been genuinely contesting his case as being aggrieved from the impugned order. I allow his request for condonation of delay and treat his application in time. In the light of this observation the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is set aside and the case is remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals) with the direction that the appeal be heard on merits and be decided in accordance with law.