Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000).‑‑‑-

‑‑‑S.9‑‑‑Maladministration‑‑‑Issuance of certificate to Returning Officer that the complainant had not paid the tax within 7 days as required‑‑ Original demand notice was produced `from which it was clear that no date was fixed for payment of tax and in the certificate it was in‑correctly stated that the arrears were to be paid within 7 days, was incorrect‑‑‑Inspecting Additional Commissioner and Assessing Officer admitted that it was issued under mistake and the intention was only to provide list of persons who were in arrears‑‑Assessing Officer had regretted on this mistake and even apologized to the complainant‑‑ Complainant was satisfied with Assessing Officer's statement of truth and repentance and desired that case might be closed in order to create a harmonious and friendly atmosphere between the taxpayers and the tax administrators‑‑‑Before closing, Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended that tax administrators and officers should be more careful in issuing certificates particularly in cases where vested rights are likely to be affected‑‑‑Complaint was closed.

Safdar Hussain Shah for the Complainant.

Muhammad Azam, I. T.O. , Jehlum for Respondent.

FINDINGS/DECISION

In this complaint allegations have been made against the ITO for committing maladministration in the course of his duty. Brief facts are that the complainant had filed return for the assessment year 2000‑01 in respect of which notice under section 61 was issued. There are certain allegations about the service of notice and the assessment made by the ITO but as the same are not relevant for the present controversy it is not necessary to dilate upon it. The main controversy is not in respect of the assessment framed by the ITO but his conduct in issuing a certificate confirming to the Returning Officer that the complainant had not paid the tax within 7 days as required. The complainant was contesting the election of Nazim when the Returning Officer was informed that the complainant is a defaulter and did not qualify to contest the election. The Returning Officer seems to get inquiry made on telephone and ultimately called the ITO who issued the certificate that the assessment was finalized on 30th May, 2001 and sent to assessee by registered post on 1‑6‑2001 alongwith challan and demand notice. The assessee was directed to pay the demand within 7 days. As tax had not been paid the allegation was made that after expiry of 7 days from 1‑6‑2001 the complainant became a defaulter. All the records including the original demand notice were produced from which it is clear that no date was fixed for payment of tax and in the certificate it was incorrectly stated that the arrear was to be paid within 7 days from 1‑6‑2001 is incorrect. A Although much could be said in respect of this certificate, the IAC and ITO have admitted that it was issued under mistake and the intention was only to provide list of persons who were in arrear. The ITO has regretted on this mistake and even apologised to the complainant. The complainant is satisfied with I.T.O.'s statement of truth and repentance and desired that case may be closed in order to create a harmonious and friendly atmosphere between the taxpayers and the tax administrators. Before closing, it may be pointed out that tax administrators and officers A should be more careful in issuing certificates particularly in cases where vested rights are likely to be affected. With this observation the case is closed.

C.M.A./M.A.K./309/FTOCase closed