Law: Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000

Section: 2(3),9

Law: Income Tax Ordinance, 2001

Section: 122,209(2)

Law: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979

Section: 62,65

(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)---S. 85---Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), S.9---Payment of tax on demand---Demand "---Period of payment---Allowing just one week for payment of demand was highly unjustified and arbitrary. (b) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)----- ----S. 62-Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), S.2(3)---C.B.R. Circular No.13-ITP/1951, dated 28-5-1951---Assessment on . production of accounts, evidence, etc.---.Estimation of sales, GP rate and overhead expenses---Wide variation---Wide variation in figures adopted to estimate sales, to apply GP rate and to fix overhead expenses resulting in income at Rs.9.3 (M), then reduced for proposing `agreement' at Rs.3.5 (M), and finally jumped tip to Rs.5.9,(M)---Validity---Glaring deficiencies i.e. whimsical/ arbitrary order, disregard of Central Board of Revenue's instructions and, unnecessary lengthy assessment order exhibiting incompetence fell in the realm of maladministration ---Due to highhandedness, arbitrary conduct, non-adherence to law and rules, maladministration' was established which was cognizable .under Establishment of Office of Federal -Tax Ombudsman Ordinance; 2000 and Federal Tax Ombudsman had jurisdiction in the matter---Federal Tax. Ombudsman recommended that the Central Board of Revenue in exercise of power under subsection (2) of S.209 of the Income Tax .Ordinance, 2001 confer upon. or assign to any taxation officer of integrity to amend the assessment orders under S. 122 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 to ensure that the complainant is liable for the correct' amount of tax, that Inspecting Additional Commissioner concerned and Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax be transferred from the Zone and disciplinary action against ACTT be initiated under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1973 in which amongst other witnesses one specified witness be also examined. FINDINGS/DECISION Brief facts of the case are that the Complainant's return for the assessment year 2000-2001, declaring income at Rs.230,000 was accepted under SAS by completing assessment on 27-3-2001 under section 59(1) of the repealed…

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