Messrs PIONEER TRADERS, LAHORE VS SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD, 2002 PTD-FEDERAL-TAX-OMBUDSMAN-PAKISTAN 2694 (2002)

Income Tax‑ Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)‑‑‑

‑‑‑‑Ss.156 & 96‑‑‑Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), S.9‑‑‑Rectification of mistake ‑‑‑Refund‑‑ Complaint against unnecessary delay in rectification of I.T. 30 and issuance of refund‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Admitted position was that assessment record had since been received and as soon as evidence of payment was provided by the complainant, necessary rectification would be made and refund issued‑‑Delay in rectification and issuance of refund was without reasonable cause and due to negligence of the Department and therefore maladministration had taken place‑‑‑Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended that the case of the complainant be taken up and after notice be decided within 45 days.

Nemo for the Complainant.

Ghulam Rasul Dat for Respondent.

DECISION/FINDINGS

The complainant alleges "maladministration" caused to him by the Special Officer of Income Tax/Wealth Tax, Circle‑I, Zone‑B, Lahore, who according to the complaint, was unnecessarily delaying rectification of IT‑30 and issuance of refund of Rs. 65,840 relating to the assessment years 1996‑97 to 1999‑2000.

2. It is reported by the respondent vide No. RCIT/J‑85/FTO/SO I/4285, dated 12‑2‑2002 that assessments for the years 1996‑97 to 1999‑2000 were finalized on 30‑6‑1998, 27‑5‑1998 and 30‑9‑1999 respectively but credit for tax paid was not possible for non‑availability of evidence. The rectification application could not be processed as the previous/original record was not available because the same was lying in Circle 29, Multan where the case was previously assessed. It is admitted that assessment record has since been received on 29‑6‑2001 and as soon as evidence of payment is provided by the complainant, necessary rectification would be made and refund issued. Mr. Ghulam Rasul, (D‑CIT) representing the respondent further confirmed these facts.

3. The complainant has chosen not to appear. Delay in rectification and issuance of refund was without reasonable cause and due to negligence of the Department. There occurred maladministration.

4. It is recommended that:

(i) The case of the complainant be taken up and after notice be decided within 45 days.

(ii) Compliance be reported within one week thereafter.

C.M.A./M.A.K./405/FTO.

Order accordingly.