| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2003 SLG 65 2003 SLD 65 2003 PTD 679 (2003) 87 TAX 323 |
Federal Tax Ombudsman
Complaint No. 76 of 2002, decision dated: 6-06-2002.
JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN
M.A. Hadi, Chartered Accountant for the Complainant. Habib Ahmad, D C.I.T. for
Respondent.
Complaint No. 76 of 2002, decision dated: 6-06-2002.
JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN
M.A. Hadi, Chartered Accountant for the Complainant. Habib Ahmad, D C.I.T. for
Respondent.
Yasin
VS
SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD
Law: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979
Section: 50(50
Law: Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000
Section: 9
Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)].....S. 50(5) Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), S.9 Deduction of tax at source -Exemption certificate, non issuance of Maladministration -Complainant/assessee fulfilled all the requirements of law and qualified for issuance of exemption certificate under S.50(5) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, as their deposits exceeded the requisite amount and they had prayed that the surplus be either refunded or adjusted against demand Validity Representative of Revenue could not rebut the factual position and had no basis to disagree with such calculation Complainant/assessee was illegally deprived of his right to get an exemption certificate under S.50(5) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 and such a denial was not the first occasion of such nature in the complainant/assessee's case thus making "Maladministration" more glaring Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended Central Board of Revenue to direct (i) the Regional Commissioner of Income Tax to issue exemption certificate within two weeks; (ii) the Regional Commissioner of Income tax to issue instructions emphasizing that where requirements of law stood fulfilled, as in the present complainant/ assessee's case, requisite exemption certificates should invariably be issued promptly. DECISION/FINDINGS The complainant accuses the R CIT, Central Region, Multan for maladministration on account of omission to issue exemption certificate under section 50(5) much against the history of the case and without valid reason, as well as causing delay in the discharge of duties and responsibilities resulting in administrative excess for recovery of tax, not legally due, from the complainant. 2. The Respondent's Report vide No.RCIT/SO III/FTO-BWP/4421 dated 8 2 2002 explains that the complainant did apply for exemption certificate under section 50(5) on 6 12 2001, "but the complainant company did not qualify for issuance of certificate as it did not fulfil actual requirement of law". It also stated that applications for exemption certificate were received on 31 12 2001 and 28 1 2002 and the certificate was in fact issued, hence no maladministration was occasioned.…
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