ISLAMABAD: Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue (ATIR) in a landmark judgment has reprimanded Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) officials for challenging the jurisdictional competence of the Commissioner (Appeals).
In a new judgement, the Tribunal noted that the allocation of cases to the Commissioner (Appeals) is exclusively operated through the IRIS digital platform, which automatically assigns cases based on jurisdictional orders issued by the FBR.
It is reliably learnt that in a recently issued order on an appeal filed by FBR Special Zone, the ATIR strictly observed that it is paradoxical for the Department to challenge the jurisdiction exercised by the Commissioner (Appeals) in accordance with the FBR’s own prescribed procedural framework.
Income Tax Ordinance 2001: Commissioner does not fall under definition of ‘person’: ATIR Islamabad
Details of the case revealed that departmental stance in the recent tax litigation case was strongly contested by tax lawyer Waheed Shahbaz Butt.
He vehemently argued that the department’s position was not only unfounded but also counterproductive, promoting futile litigation and squandering precious taxpayer money where FBR had attempted to question the jurisdiction of the Commissioner (Appeals), despite the clear guidelines outlined in the jurisdictional orders.
The Tribunal’s reprimand underscores the importance of adhering to established procedures and respecting the jurisdictional boundaries set by the FBR itself.
ATIR order stated “primary grievance of the department revolves around the jurisdictional competence of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) to adjudicate the matter and further annulment of the impugned order of the DCIR.
At the very outset, the Bench inquired from the departmental representative (DR) as to the nature of prejudice purportedly caused to the Department by the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals).
The DR contended that the Commissioner (Appeals) lacked jurisdiction to entertain and decide the matter, as the jurisdiction order dated 14.12.2020 designated Learned Commissioner (Appeals)-l as the competent appellate authority“.
Bench sought clarification from the DR regarding the mechanism governing the assumption of jurisdiction by the Commissioner (Appeals), particularly whether such jurisdiction is assumed manually or through an automated process.
The DR unequivocally confirmed that appeals are filed exclusively through the IRIS digital platform, which automatically allocates cases to the respective Commissioner (Appeals) based on jurisdictional orders issued by the FBR.
Given that jurisdictional assignment is effectuated through an automated process administered by the FBR itself, the taxpayer exercises no discretion in selecting the appellate forum. It is thus paradoxical that the Department now seeks to challenge the jurisdiction exercised in accordance with its own prescribed procedural framework: ATIR added.
The DR failed to demonstrate any deviation from the established rules governing jurisdictional allocation. Consequently, the jurisdictional objection raised by the Department is devoid of merit and unsustainable in law, ATIR ordered.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
