' SHAHID JAMIL KHAN, J.---Petitioner has challenged letter dated 3-6-2015 issued by respondent No.4. Relevant part is reproduced hereunder:- "Your request to direct the Additional Commissioner to drop the proceedings has been considered and found not acceptable. Please note that the tax proceedings including the proceedings under section 122(5A) are quasi judicial in nature and the officer concerned has to decide the matter independently without any influence of higher authorities. You are advised to raise all legal objections before the concerned officer so that the matter may be decided by him judiciously accordingly to law".
' Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a specific objection regarding jurisdiction was taken which was not addressed by respondent No.3, therefore, commissioner (respondent No.4) was approached through an application. Submits that order by Commissioner is in clear violation of section 211 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 ("Ordinance").
2. Malik Asad, Advocate, on Court's call, accepts notice on behalf of respondents and request for some time to seek instructions.
3. Heard both the learned counsel at preliminary stage.
4. The impugned order by Commissioner (respondent No.4) is self-explanatory, which shows that it was passed in ignorance of provisions of section 211 of the Ordinance, which are reproduced hereunder:--- "211. Power or function exercised.---(1) Where, by virtue of an order under section 210, [an Officer of Inland Revenue] exercises a power or performs a function of the Commissioner, such power of function shall be treated as having been exercised or performed by the Commissioner.
(2) The exercise of a power, or the performance of a function, of the Commissioner by [an officer of Inland Revenue] shall not prevent the exercise of the power, or the performance of the function, by the Commissioner.]
(3) The Board or with the approval of the Board an authority appointed under this Ordinance, shall be competent to exercise all powers conferred upon any authority subordinate to it".
5. The letter/order dated 3-6-2014 is set aside and matter is referred back to Commissioner (respondent No.4) for decision afresh, himself or through respondent No.3, on question of jurisdiction before proceeding further.
' The petitioner may approach this Court again, if permissible under the law.
' Disposed of.