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

‑‑‑‑Ss.2(3) & 9‑‑‑Maladministration‑‑‑Repetition of enquiries on the same issue at the behest of brother‑in‑law of the assessee‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑When more than one enquiries had admittedly not discovered any damaging evidence, some finality should be conferred on proceedings instead of dangling a sword permanently as this must be distracting and distressing for a taxpayer‑‑‑Unless there was proof of glaring neglect or laxity on the part of those who conducted earlier investigations or some new facts emerged the repetition of enquiries appeared meaningless and tended to support the allegation that it was being done .to harass the complainant at the behest of some official of the Department‑‑‑Such repeated inquiries based on irrelevant and false grounds caused harassment to the taxpayers and amounted to maladministration ‑‑‑Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended that if in future any further complaint, was received, it should be carefully gone through by the Regional Commissioner of Income‑tax and if there were no fresh facts or tangible evidence warranting inquiry same should be filed without summoning the assessee; that Department to report whether any action had been initiated against the complainant for filing complaints which were found to be incorrect and baseless; if action had been taken full details be provided and if proceedings had not been taken reasons be submitted for not taking any action.

Complainant in person.

Muhammad Naeem, D.C.I.T. for Respondent.

DECISION/FINDINGS

The Complainant . is aggrieved of the tiresome repetition of investigations against him by the Department on the basis of the allegation levelled by his own brother‑in‑law, Dr. Jawad Afzal, who is statedly revengeful due to some property dispute.

2. The complainant explained that almost on identical points, enquiries were made by the Department several times since the year 1993 unearthing no damaging material against him The frequency of investigations has become a source of inconvenience and annoyance for him. It was further submitted that in the year 2001 again, the Director Audit, Lahore initiated enquiries and called for detailed report from the CIT, Multan. The Complainant apprehends this vicious circle does not seem to come to an end and has robbed him of peace of mind.

3. In its reply the respondent submits that the complaint relates to only one issue i.e. various enquiries/investigations‑ conducted by the Income Tax Circle and the Inspection and Audit (DT) Wing but there is no specific allegation with regard to proceedings of assessment or "maladministration". It is categorically affirmed that the concerned Commissioner has reported that at present no formal enquiries are pending in this case. However, the complainant still expressed grave apprehension that fresh enquiries/ investigation may start any time, as in the past. Thus taxing his time and patience

4. It is not correct that the complaint does not contain specific allegation of. "maladministration. The complainant has referred to three inquiries all initiated at the behest of his brother‑in‑law Dr. Javed Afzal on the same subject‑matter which had been closed as the allegations were found to be incorrect. He has even named the high official of C.B.R. in this regard about whom he has expressed his apprehension This has arisen because of repeated inquiries in respect of complainant's assessment of Income and Wealth. It is understandable that when morel than one enquiry has admittedly not discovered any damaging evidence, some finality should be conferred instead of dangling a sword permanently. Surely, this must be distracting and distressing for a taxpayer who pursues the respectable and demanding profession of a physician. Unless there is proof of glaring neglect or laxity on the part of those who conducted earlier investigations or some new facts emerge, the repetition of enquiries appear meaningless and lend to support the allegation that it is being done to harass the complainant at the behest of some official of the Department. Such repeated inquiries based on irrelevant and false ground‑s cause harassment to the taxpayer and amounts to maladministration,

5.???????? It is, therefore, recommended that:

(i)???????? If in future any further complaint, is received, "it should be carefully gone through by the RCIT and if there' are no fresh facts or tangible evidence warranty and inquiry the same should be filed without summoning Prof. Dr. Iqbal Ahmad Chaudhry.

(ii)??????? Department to report whether any action has been initiated against Dr. Javed AFZal for filing complaints which were found to be incorrect and baseless‑‑‑

(a)??????? if action has been taken full details be provided;

(b)??????? if proceeding has not been taken reasons be submitted for nor taking any action;

(c)??????? compliance report re (ii)(a) and (b) be submitted within 3 weeks.

C.M.A./M.A.K./315/FTO?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Order accordingly