HIDAYAT ULLAH DAR VS SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD, 2002 PTD-FEDERAL-TAX-OMBUDSMAN-PAKISTAN 2228 (2002)

Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)‑‑‑‑‑‑‑First Sched., Part I, Para. (A), proviso (b)(iv)‑‑‑Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), S.9‑‑ Senior citizen rebate‑‑‑Income declared at Rs.5,000 was assessed at Rs.85,000 which was reduced by the First Appellate Authority at Rs.65,000‑‑‑Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended that complainant was entitled to the senior citizen rebate admissible in the First Sched., Part 1, para. (A) proviso (b)(iv) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1 979 which may be allowed on furnishing of requisite evidence‑‑‑Inspecting Additional Commissioner agreed to take necessary action to ;Aow rebate admissible to the assessee under the law.

Complainant (absent).

Imtiaz Anwar, I.A.C., Sialkot Range on behalf of Respondent.

DECISION/FINDINGS

Complainant Mr. Hidayat Ullah Kiryana is a shopkeeper, .who has claimed that he is running a small Kiryana Store located in an area where income earned is very low. It is alleged that his monthly income is about Rs.300 to 400 only, which is earned solely from this shop. It was further submitted that he is a senior citizen of 65 years and is not maintaining good health. For the assessment year 1999‑2000 annual income of less than Rs.40,000 was declared. It is alleged that the Income‑tax Officer Narowal summoned the complainant through a notice and asked for sources of investment and other details. In response, it was requested by the complainant that a responsible authorized person be deputed to verify the declared version, but the request was ignored and the Assessing Officer arbitrarily estimated annual income as Rs.80,000 and levied Rs.2,500 as income‑tax.

2. The complainant filed an appeal against the said order before the Commissioner of Income‑tax/Wealth Tax, Sialkot with the request to hold an inquiry by an authorized and honest person to verify his claim. It is alleged that this request remained unheeded and income was reduced only to Rs.65,000 and tax demand of Rs.2,200 was created as revised tax.

3. On the date of hearing 11‑2‑2002 the complainant was absent, and Mr. Imtiaz Anwar, Additional Commissioner of Income‑tax. Sialkot appeared on behalf of the department. It was submitted by the I.A.C. that the assessee had filed the Income‑tax Return for the year 1999‑2000 declaring income at Rs.5,000 only. His statement was recorded by the Assessing Officer on the order sheet on 18‑1‑2001 whereby he admitted that his son had been running a video centre in the other shop owned b% him. He also admitted'that his electricity bill is Rs.1,000 per month and his joint family consists of eight members. Since it was a no account case therefore, his sales were estimated at Rs.700,000 and his income was determined at Rs.80,000.

4. It has been found that the complainant is not maintaining accounts of his business and is the owner of two shops. The income declared at Rs.5,000 per annum in the return filed for assessment year 1999‑2000 is not realistic, however, perusal of the declared income in previous assessment years show that it, was Rs.40,000 in 1997‑98 and Rs. 50,000 in assessment year 1998‑99. There was an increase of Rs.30,000 in assessment year 1999‑2000 by the Assessing Officer which was subsequently reduced by the C.I.T. (Appeals) Rs.65,000.

5. Keeping in view the stated age and health of the complainant he is entitled to the senior citizen rebate admissible in the First Schedule, Part I para. (A), proviso (b)(iv) of the Ordinance, on furnishing of requisite evidence. This was agreed to by the I.A.C., who submitted that necessary action will be taken to give the complainant, rebate admissible to him under the law.

6. Compliance be reported within four weeks of the receipt of this order.

C.M.A./M.A.K./334/FTOOrder accordingly.