NASIRUL MULK, J.--(l). This writ petition, filed by Babi Gul Sajjad, widow of Sajjad Haider Durrani arises out of the assessm ent made for the year 1995-96 by the Assistant Commissioner, Income- tax on 8-6-1998 regarding the tax returns of the petitioner's husband. By the time, the assessment order was passed, the petitioner's husband had died on 13-2-1998. This assessment order was questioned by the petitioner in appeal made to Commissioner of Income-tax/Wealth Tax Appeal Zone II, Peshawar. The appeal was dismissed on 24-8-1998 as not maintainable because it was not verified by the petitioner or the other legal heirs of the petitioner's husband, but was verified by Mr. Shafi Jan, Advocate, counsel for the petitioner. Against this dismissal order, the petitioner referred revision to Member (Judicial) Income-tax, under section 138 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.
During the pendency of the revision, notice was issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Income-tax to the petitioner for payment of Income-tax already assessed. The notice was also challenged before the Member (Judicial) Income-tax. Eventually, on 27-10-1999 the revision was dismissed.
The petitioner has now through this writ petition prayed for setting aside the order of the Commissioner Income-tax Appeal dated 24-8-1998 and that of the Member (Judicial) Income-tax, dated 27-10-1999.
2. Pre-admission notice was issued to the respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel representing the Income-tax Department, were heard.
3. The only prayer made in the writ petition is for direction to Commissioner Income-tax Appeal to hear the appeal of the petitioner on merits. It is true that verification is to be made by the person filing an appeal. However, the learned counsel for the respondents has not been able to point out any provision in the Income Tax Ordinance that failure by the appellant to personally verify The appeal would ipso facto result in dismissal of the appeal. The appeal was verified by the counsel for the petitioner and defect in verification if any could have been remedied by providing opportunity to the petitioner for rectification. Noncompliance with the provision does not entail dismissal.
4. Resultantly, we would allow this writ petition, set aside the impugned orders and direct the Commissioner of Income-tax/Wealth Tax Appeal Zone II, Peshawar (respondent No. 3) to decide the appeal of the petitioner, which shall be deemed to be pending. The petitioner is allowed to personally verify the appeal, which shall be done before its hearing. There shall be no orders as to costs.