MUHAMMAD IRFAN SATTAR VS SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD, 2003 PTD-FEDERAL-TAX-OMBUDSMAN-PAKISTAN 179 (2002)

Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)‑‑‑

‑‑‑S.56‑‑‑Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), S.9‑‑‑Notice for furnishing return of total income‑‑ Commencement of business ‑‑‑Complainant/assessee leased out shop on 1‑9‑2001 and voluntarily applied for NTN on 5‑2‑2001‑‑‑Notice under S.56 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 was issued requiring the complainant to file return of income for assessment year 2001‑2002 and preceding three years‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Inaptitude in the discharge of duties by the Inspector as well as the Special Officer was established from the fact that the Inspector reported without any basis that the assessee was conducting business for three or four years and the Special Officer instead of demanding from Inspector to substantiate this report, proceeded to issue notices under S. 56 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 for four years to a person who had voluntarily applied for NTN‑‑ Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended that Regional Commissioner of Income Tax concerned to issue direction to the relevant Commissioner of Income Tax, to reprimand the Special Officer and the Inspector concerned in writing on their administrative excesses against the complainant.

Sh. Abdul Sattar for the Complainant.

Mehmood Aslam, Secretary, C.B.R. for Respondent.

FINDING/RECOMMENDATIONS

Maladministration is alleged, in the instant complaint, on the part of Mr. Shamim Ashraf Kamal, Special Officer of Income Tax (SOIT), Circle 19, Gujranwala for issuing allegedly unwarranted notices under section 56 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 (hereafter called Ordinance) requiring the complainant to file returns of Income for assessment year 2001‑2002 and preceding three years.

2. Notice under section 10(4) of the Ordinance No. XXXV of 2000 was served and the RCIT, Northern Region, Islamabad made written submissions. He admitted that the complainant applied for issuance of National Tax Number on 5‑2‑2001 and NTN 16‑19‑1307302‑8 was issued. It was followed by notices under section 56 calling for returns of income for the assessment years 1998‑99 to 2001‑2002 based on report of Circle Inspector available on record. He confirmed that the complainant filed the returns of income in compliance of notices and that no further .action had been taken by the Assessing Officer so far.

3. The RCIT denied the allegation that the notices under section 56 had been issued to harass the complainant with ulterior motives. According to RCIT, the allegation is not supported with any substantive evidence.

4. Regarding the insinuation in the complaint that ulterior motive of Assessing Officer was evident from the fact that notices had not been issued to several shopkeepers in the same commercial area who were conducting business for several years, without

applying for NTN, the RCIT submitted that neither any details nor evidence had been filed.

5. The RCIT further submitted that according to Commissioner Income Tax, Gujranwala the shop occupied by the complainant had been leased out by the landlady to the father of the complainant Sheikh Abdul Sattar on 1‑9‑2001 which belies Inspector's report. However, according to the CIT, the proceedings to ascertain the correct date of commencement of business by the complainant were in hand without causing any harassment. It was further.‑ submitted by the RCIT that according to the CIT Gujranwala the complainant, was not given any pretext for complaint.

6. Mr. Muhammad Irfan Sattar was represented on the date of hearing by his father, Sheikh Abdul Sattar while the respondent was represented by Mr. Mahmood Aslam, Secretary, C.B.R.

7. The representative of the complainant submitted a written rejoinder dated 16‑5‑2002 to the written reply filed by the RCIT, Northern Region, Islamabad. He also filed an affidavit of one Muhammad Nazeer son of Ali Muhammad, resident of 145/D, Satellite Town, Gujranwala stating that he was served a notice on 17‑4‑2002 that was issued by SOIT, Circle 19, Gujranwala on 2‑3‑2002.

8. Most of the contents of the rejoinder as well as the enclosed affidavit of Muhammad Nazeer were irrelevant to the only specific allegation in the complaint that notices issued under section 56 were unwarranted and were intended to harass the complainant.

9. The Representative of Revenue Division submitted that the Inspector reported on 14‑2‑2002 that the person who had been issued NTN‑1307302‑8 by C.B.R. on 10‑2‑2001 was conducted business for the last three or four years in the name and style of Sattar Paint House. He further submitted that the copy of lease agreement obtained from the shop owner (lessor) Mst. Nargis Begum indicated that, the shop was leased out on 1‑9‑2001 to Sheikh Abdul Sattar @ 2500 per month. He further submitted that Messrs Diamond Paint Industries respondent in response to notice under section 144 that they had no dealings with the assessee, hence proceedings initiated under section 56 were being dropped.

10. Ineptitude in the discharge of duties by the Inspector as well as the Special Officer is established from the fact that the Inspector reported without any basis that the assessee was conducting business for three or four years and the Special Officer instead of demanding from Inspector to substantiate his report, proceeded to issue notices under section 56 for four years to a person who had voluntarily .applied for NTN.

11. It is recommended that RCIT, Northern Region, Islamabad to issue direction to the CIT, Gujranwala to reprimand Mr. Shamim Ashraf Kamal, Special Officer and the Inspector concerned in writing on their administrative excesses against the complainant. Copies of written reprimand be submitted within 30 days.

C.M.A./M.A.K./487/F70 Order accordingly.