Case Details

Citation(s)
2003 SLG 144 2003 SLD 144 2003 PTD 1604
Federal Tax Ombudsman
Complaint No. 778 of 2002, decision dated: 22-08-2002
JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN
Malik Abdul Haq for the Complainant. Muhammad Saleem, D.C.I.T. for
Respondent

Messrs AZEEM HOSIERY FINISHING PLANT, FAISALABAD

VS

SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD

Law: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979

Section: 65

Law: Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000

Section: 9

income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)----S. 65---Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), S.9---Additional assessment ---Expenses---Non-claiming of---Re-opening of assessment on the ground that expenditure incurred on account of social security payments was not claimed in statement of account---Validity---Initiation of proceedings under S.65 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 was against the law and. thus maladministration ---Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended that Commissioner of Income-tax, to take suo motu cognizance of the case and annul the order based on proceeding under S.65 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 which were ab initio void in law. 2000 PTD (Trib.) 2905; I.T.A. No. 3414/LB of 1998 and 1988 PTD (Trib.) 973 ref. DECISION Maladministration is alleged in the instant complaint against the DCIT, Circle 8, Faisalabad, Mr. Asif Rasool, precisely for initiating arbitrary and perverse proceedings and making. an unjust additional assessment based on irrelevant grounds, under section 65 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 hereinafter called the Ordinance. 2. Other objections that the order passed under section 65 was barred by time and that there was no assessment order in the field prior to initiation of proceedings under section 65 are found without any substances. An order under section 59(1) was deemed to have been passed under the Self-Assessment Scheme for 1995-96, the moment an acknowledgment of filing of return was issued by the Department. Similarly, it is found that notice under section 65 was served on 7-12-1999 while the order under section 65 was passed on 24-1-2002. Delay in service of the order under section 65 till 13-5-2002 is maladministration but allegation of manipulation ii. the date of passing the order by the incumbent officer on 13-5-2002 is incomprehensible because he was not incharge of the Circle when the proceedings would have become time-barred had the order. not been passed on 24-1-2001. 3. Preliminary objection taken on behalf of the respondent is that the matter relates to assessment of income and interpretation of law relating to such assessment in respect of which legal remedies of appeal and…
🔒
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