M R. JUSTICE QAZI FAEZ ISA. (1). Leave was granted vide order dated 17 January 2020 which is reproduced hereunder: `Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though in terms of Subsection b(A) of Section 177 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 ("the Ordinance"), it was the Commissioner who could have amended the assessm ent under Subsection (1) or Subsection (4) of Section 122, as the case may be, and in [sic] indeed it is true that in terms of Subsection (1A) of Section 210 of the Ordinance the Commissioner could have delegated such powers but such delegation as prescribed through Subsection (IA) could not have been to an officer of Inland Revenue below the rank of Additional Commissioner, Inland Revenue however in the present case the amended assessment has been carried out by a Deputy Commissioner which is wholly illegal and without due authority.
2. The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner require consideration. Leave is accordingly granted issue notice.'
2. The learned counsel for the appellant states that right from the beginning the appellant has been contending that the amended assessment order was passed by a Deputy Commissioner Inland Revenue who did not have the requisite authority to do so. In this regard the learned counsel referred to the objections taken by the appellant which were also taken at each and every juncture but none of the impugned orders/judgments attended to this objection.
3. In view of the leave granting order and the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant, we enquired from the learned counsel representing the respondent whether the amended assessm ent order was passed by the Commissioner or an officer on whom the requisite powers had been delegated. The learned counsel for the respondent in presence of Mr. Sohail Ahmed, Additional Commissioner Legal (HQ) RTO, Peshawar, acknowledges that the order was passed by the Deputy Commissioner but was unable to show from the record that the Deputy Commissioner was given the requisite authority. Therefore, we had kept this case aside so that the representative of the respondent could obtain the same if it existed. But when we took up this case again at the end of the day he was still unable to controvert the contention that the amended assessment order was not passed by an unauthorized officer. The impugned orders/judgments of the forums from which this appeal has arisen did not hold that the amended assessment order was passed by a duly empowered Deputy Commissioner nor does the amended assessment order state that he was so authorized.
4. Therefore, since the amended assessment order was passed by an unauthorized officer it cannot be sustained. The appellant had urged this point before each of the forums but none of them attended to this nor has any material been placed before us to show that the officer who passed the amended assessm ent order had been delegated the power to pass such an order.
Therefore, this appeal succeeds and the amended assessment order dated 24 October 2014 for the tax year 2009 is set aside being in contravention of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.