Dr. ZAHID AHMAD KHAN, RADIOLOGIST, SERVICE HOSPITAL, LAHORE VS SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD, 2002 PTD-FEDERAL-TAX-OMBUDSMAN-PAKISTAN 2223 (2001)

Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXX V of 2000)‑‑‑ --‑‑Ss.2(3) & 9‑‑‑Maladministration‑‑‑Issues constituting "maladministra tion" raised before appellate forum‑‑‑Adjudication of‑‑‑Effect‑‑‑Issues constituting "maladministration" pending before the appellate forum at the time of filing of complaint were not entertained by the Federal Tax Ombudsman and. the case was closed with clarification that where appeal or revision was pending and the issue of "maladministration" had not been raised there, the same could be agitated before the Federal Tax Ombudsman.

Ahmad Shuja Khan for the Complainant.

Ms. Fouzia Fakhar, D.C.I.T. Com‑Zone‑I, Lahore for Respondent.

FINDINGS/DECISION

The complainant had filed his return for the assessment year 1998‑99 allegedly under Self‑Assessment Scheme showing total income of Rs.3,42,296 and income‑tax amounting to Rs.30,724 was paid. A notice under section 61 was received by the complainant in respect of assessment years 1998‑99 and 1999‑2000 for appearance before the D.C.I.T. on 6‑12-2000 along with complete books‑of‑accounts. The complainant enquired the reasons for excluding the return from the Self Assessment Scheme. In spite of several reminders, no reply was received and ultimately on 15‑5‑2001 when the Advocate for the complainant appeared before the D.C.I.T. she stated that tax paid this year was less than the tax paid in the last assessment year 1997‑98 and, therefore, the return did not qualify for acceptance under S.A.S. However, the complainant's Advocate reiterated his point of view contending that in the light of first and second proviso to sub‑clause (b) of clause (2) of Circular, dated 21‑7‑1998 complainant was entitled to the benefits of Self‑Assessment Scheme. The Assessing Officer proceeded with the assessment and passed assessment. The Department in reply stated that the complainant Advocate was duly informed about the reasons for excluding the return from Self‑Assessment Scheme and. that during proceedings the defects in the accounts books were pointed out for proper explanation by the assessee.

The learned counsel contended that no order for excluding the return from Self‑Assessment Scheme was passed and further that notice under proviso to section 62 was never issued and thus opportunity to reply the alleged defects was not provided.

On perusal of the record, it seems that the complainant has filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income‑tax (Appeals) which was pending at the time the complaint was received in this office. In the memo of appeal, the complainant has challenged the order inter aila on the ground that the D.C.I.T. has erred in law in not accepting the return under S.A.S. and further that on notice under proviso to subsection (1) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 was given to the complainant.

According to the contention of the learned counsel for the complainant, these two issues constitute "maladministration". The complainant has raised these very issues before the appellate forum which was pending at the time of filing of his complaint. Therefore, it A cannot be entertained and the case is closed. It may be clarified 'that in cases where appeal or revision is pending and the issue of maladministration" has not been raised there, the same can be agitated before the Federal Tax Ombudsman.

C.M.A./M.A.K./335/FTOOrder accordingly.