' MANZOOR HUSSAIN SIAL, J.--This order will dispose of T.R. Nos.157, and 159 of 1973 as common questions of law and fact are involved in all these matters.
2. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Rawalpindi Zone, Rawlpindi filed these reference applications under subsection (1) of Section 66 of the Income-tax Act, 1922 relatable to the assessment years 1966-67, 1967-68 and 1968-69 against der dated 10-1-1973 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lahore (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') whereby the appeals filed by M/s. Kohinoor Trading company, Sialkot, respondent herein, were accepted and order refusing registration and renewal of the respondent-firm was set aside and the case remanded to the Income-tax Officer for passing fresh orders for registration of the firm.
3. The question of law formulated for reference is as follows:- "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in allowing registration of the firm on the basis of application dated 29-11-1965."
4. Learned counsel for respondent No,1 raised preliminary objection to the very competence of the reference applications filed on 18-7-1973 under subsection (1) of Section 66 of the Income Act, 1922.
It was submitted that the petitioner did not comply with the mandatory provisions of clause (a) of subsection (2) of the aforesaid section as certified copies of the order of the Tribunal dated 10-1- 1973 were not filed with the reference applications. In support of this contention he relied on The Commissioner of Income Tax v. Messrs Sethi Brothers (1987 PTD 703) and The Commissioner of Income Tax, Rawalpindi Zone, Rawalpindi v. M/s. Mian Javed A. Sheikh 1989 PTD 525 decided on 7- 2-1989.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner when confronted with the above position was unable to controvert the submission made by learned counsel for the respondent.
5. Section 66 of the Income Tax Act (XI of 1922) was amended by Financial Ordinance XIV of 1971.
According to the amended subsection (2) an application filed under subsection (1) thereof shall be accompanied by certified copy, triplicate, of the order of the Appellate Tribunal. This being a mandatory provision identical to that contained under Order XLI, rule 1, C.P.C. Which required Memorandum of Appeal to accompany copy of the decree appealed from, the reference applications were not validly presented and the Court cannot dispense with the same. The petitioner not only failed to file certified copy, in triplicate of the order of Tribunal but did not apply for dispensation thereof.
6. In the result the reference applications are not maintainable and are accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. as incompetent.