Case Details

Citation(s)
2007 SLG 1673 2007 SLD 1673 2007 PTD 1222
Federal Tax Ombudsman
Complaint No. 476-L of 2004, decision dated: 7-08-2004
JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN
Nemo for the Complainant. Arif Malik, A-CIT

ZAFAR IQBAL

VS

SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD

Law: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979

Section: 59(1),59A,50,122A,100,102,59,85,50(7E)

Law: Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000

Section: 23(ii)

Law: Income Tax Ordinance, 2001

Section: 171,122A

Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)--- ----Ss. 96, 50(7-E) & 50(7-F)---Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), S.2(3)---Refund---Deduction at source---Demand notice conveyed no refund although the same was claimed on Returns---Rectification application was filed but still no refund was issued---On complaint, department replied that refund had been issued, grievance had been redressed and thus complaint be filed-Validity---In rectification order Assessing Officer admitted that "while preparing IT-30 effect of deduction under S.50(7E) was not given", and "on perusal of record claim of the assessee was found genuine"---Department conceded that Returns available on file were accompanied by electricity and telephone bills together with details of month-wise deductions and that subsequent information was neither called for nor submitted voluntarily when seeking rectification---There being no dispute that full particulars justifying refund were furnished with the Returns filed under Self-Assessment Scheme and assessment were framed under S.59 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, no bona fide reason thus existed for not determining refunds and for not dispatching the vouchers along with the notice under S.85 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979---Such act of `neglect, incompetence and inaptitude' defined as `maladministration', could not be allowed to deprive the complainant/ taxpayer of his vested right for mandatory "Additional payment for delayed refund"---To validate the already issued refunds and to bring the assessment record in conformity with' law, Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended that the Commissioner, taking cognizance of foregoing facts to undertake written counselling of the concerned Special Officer (the person not the Office) for lapses as pointed out hereinabove and against the Inspecting Additional Commissioner (person not the office) for not having exercised supervisory functions with diligence with a copy endorsed to the Director, Compliance Monitoring Section of Federal Tax Ombudsman Office; the Commissioner ensures either further rectification of the rectified assessment order for 1999-2000 to allow credit for tax…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492