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

‑‑‑‑S. 2(3)‑‑‑Maladministation‑‑‑Illegal tax practice of the departmental officials‑‑‑Allegations by the assessee and rebuttal by the tax officials‑‑ Mistrust between the parties‑‑‑‑Complaint‑‑‑In the prevailing atmosphere/circumstances there could be no end to allegations and rebuttals‑‑‑Allegations levelled by the petitioner were cumulative outcome of small complaints and grudges harboured over a period of time, which heaped‑ up and took the shape of mistrust between the petitioner and the officers/officials of the Department‑‑‑Main reason for the creation of such a situation was the fact that concerned income‑tax circles were neglected by the higher Authorities‑‑‑By visiting the circle regularly such petty problems could be solved on the spot and such situation could be avoided‑‑‑In order to create an atmosphere of goodwill between the taxpayers, tax officials and the practising lawyers and for solution of the problems Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended that the Additional Commissioner concerned should pay visit to the circles at least once in a quarter; the Commissioner concerned should pay an annual visit to these circles Central Board of Revenue's policy regarding posting/transfers be followed and officials/officers with longer stay, particularly against whom complaints have been received be transferred to other stations and the Regional Commissioner of Income Tax to hold a meeting at Commissioner of Income Tax Office, between the comp lainant and the concerned officers/officials of the Department to sort out the problems/grievances and take action for redressal.

Aslam Marwat for the Complainant.

Dr. M. Usman Khan, A.C.I.T., Peshawar.

FINDINGS/DECISION

Brief facts of the case are that the complainant is an Advocate and works as Income Tax Practitioner at Bannu. He has some grievances against the officers/officials of the income‑tax department which are summarised as under:‑‑

(i)That the staff of income‑tax circle Bannu on the instruction of higher officers instigate against him all the assessees and particularly his clients because he lodges complaints against them. All his cases liable to be finalized in routine were skill pending and the tax officials approach his clients asking them to avoid the services of the complainant and directly deal with them. So, on 29‑9‑2002 the complainant gave a notice to the officials concerned telling them to refrain from illegal practice, but the reply is still awaited. .

(ii)That returns for assessment year 2002‑2003 in the cases of all brick kilns owners, specialist doctors, ice factories, patrol pumps and property markets were prepared by the officials in their own handwriting/typed and received illegal gratification in the name of Advocate fee.

(iii)That the Civil Judge Bannu passed a decree that the officials of income tax department are, not competent to prepare returns and other relevant documents/appeals but the complainant withdrew the execution of the decree and filed this complaint.

(iv)That the tax officials have formed a silent union on the instigation/order of the IAC against the professional lawyers and Mr. Umer Hayat LDC, Circle‑24, who has been nominated as coordinator to deal with the assessees instigates them against the lawyers.

(v)That on the instructions of the IAC, the Special Officer, Circle 24, locked the waiting room/bar room and started social boycott of the complainant in all respects. An application was made for vacating the bar room and IAC/CIT were informed but in spite of the order of CIT(PR) for vacating the waiting room at Circle No.24 the Special Officer has allotted a room in Circle‑25, Bannu, which is not wanted.

(vi)That various bogus complaints/legal notices were issued from these Circles using the complainant's fictitious pad/stamp and forged signature to defame him in the eyes of the department. A request was made to CIT(PR) for action against the officials but in vain.

(vii)That all the officials (UDCs, N/servers, peons) are local persons with their entire service at Bannu Circles. They are performing the duties of an agent and finalize the cases before giving the required notices under section 56/61 and after striking the bargain, relevant documents are prepared/appeal filed by notice servers.

(viii)That for assessment year 2001‑2002 the case of total audit were finalized by Special Officer Circle 27, D. I. Khan as Special Officers of Circle No. 24/25 Bannu were not trusted due to their attitude and as all the relevant documents. were prepared by staff thus preventing the assessees to engage lawyers.

(ix)That the case of Haji Behram Shah represented by the complainant was excessively taxed without any solid reason. NFC's certificate regarding commission received by the assessee was rejected and a tax of Rs.39,161 was imposed. Various notices under section 62 were issued in this case to defame the complainant professionally as he refused to fulfil their demand of illegal gratification, while all other cases represented through office agents were assessed at nominal tax. These important total audit cases are.liable to be checked.

(x)That according to the explanation, dated 31‑10‑2000 called by the IAC, D. I. Khan, the tax officials were engaged in preparing the returns on the last date instead of performing their duties. No further action was taken after the explanation.

It is prayed by the petitioner that the officials/employees of income tax department may be prevented from illegal practice of preparing returns and filing appeals on taking illegal gratification in the name of Advocate fee. C.B.R. may be directed to clarify the transfer policy of the official's stay. Special Officer appointed on temporary basis may be transferred due to corruption and maladministration. CIT(A) may be directed not to accept the appeals already prepared/filed by the staff of Circles and that the notices be sent through post instead of notice servers/peons.

2. The respondent in his seriatim reply has submitted that:

(i)Both the Assessing Officers stationed at Bannu have reported that the staff of their Circles never instigated any taxpayer against the complainant. Reply to the complainant's legal notice, dated 20‑9‑2002 was given by the officers on 9‑10‑2002.

(ii)The officers have denied any practice of filing in returns by the officials. However, due guidance is provided to the assessees in the Tax Facilitation Centre in accordance with the policy of the C.B.R.

(iii)No such decree was reportedly passed. Instead a patch up took place before the Senior Civil Judge, Bannu on 29‑6‑1998, as a result of which the petition filed by the complainant was withdrawn.

(iv)No union has been formed on the instigation of the IAC nor Mr. Umar Hayat LDC of circle‑24, Bannu has been nominated as a Coordinator to deal with the taxpayers and to instigate them against the lawyers.

(v)Both the Circles at Bannu are adjacent to each other Bar Room was allotted in Circle‑25, Bannu on 1^st floor of the building. The complainant was, accordingly informed about allotment vide letter dated 20-8-2002.

(vi)The complainant has not named any officer/official in the allegations. Hence no comment can be offered.

(vii)None of the officials is reportedly working as agent or broker and no case has been finalized without issuance/service of statutory notices. Moreover, documents/appeals are not prepared by the notice servers.

(viii)Total audit cases were assigned to Circle‑27, D.I. Khan according to the policy of C.B.R. The assessees were never prevented from engaging lawyers.

(ix)Assessment in the case of Haji Shah Behram was finalized on the basis of facts and circumstances of the case and in accordance with law. However, the assessee has the right to challenge the order at the appellate forum, if he feels aggrieved.

(x)Due to absence of particulars of the cases, no comment can be offered. No irregularity is reportedly committed by the officials posted at Bannu. However, if the complainant has any specific grievance, he may see the RCIT or CIT, Peshawar Zone.

3. The department submits that in light of the above, the petitioning devoid of any merit, may be rejected.

4. On the date of hearing the petitioner attended in person and reiterated the allegations as per complaint. The representative of the respondent denied all these allegations. Case was refixed for hearing on 29‑5‑2003 calling the complainant and Mr. Umer Hayat, UDC. The complainant did not appear and instead sent a copy of handwritten affidavit on plain paper stating that he would withdraw all civil/criminal cases in the Courts as well as complaints to C.B.R. and other authorities against the officials/officers of Circle 24/25, Bannu on assurance by the office of the CIT Peshawar to redress grievances/complaints against some officers, subject to meeting with the other two advocates, Mr. Sarmast Khan and Rahmatullah Khan Wazir. The affidavit does not indicate as before whom it was submitted. He sent another letter, dated 26‑5‑2003 stating his inability to attend the hearing due to unavoidable circumstances and the threat given by brother‑in‑law of Mr. Taza Khan (TO Circle 24) on telephone which has been reported to the local police. It is further stated that therefore, the entire responsibility of bogus and fictitious complaints lies on Mr. Taza Khan instead of Umer Hayat Khan, UDC and bogus complaints have also been made against Sarmast Khan, Advocate and Rehmatullah Khan Advocate under fictitious signatures and stamps of the complainant (Mr. Aslam Khan Marwat) and Mr. Yousaf informer. A legal notice in this regard was given by the complainant to .the RCIT, Northern Regional, Islamabad and the CIT Peshawar from whom the complainant has statedly received positive

5. Mr. Umer Hayat, LDC attended alongwith Mr. Taza Khan, Taxation Officer, Bannu and submitted his reply in which he has denied all charges levelled against him by the complainant. He categorically denied the existence of any union in the Income‑tax Circle, Bannu. He also denied to have ever instigated any taxpayer against the complainant or to have ever stopped any taxpayer from engaging any lawyer practitioner. He also stated that he has been transferred from Bannu to Peshawar. A copy of transfer order, dated 29‑4‑2003 was furnished by

6. The contentions and viewpoint of both the sides have been considered. In the prevailing atmosphere/circumstances there can be no end to allegations and rebuttals. The allegations levelled by the petitioner are the cumulative outcome of small complaints and grudges harboured over, a period of time, which heaped up and took the shape of mistrust between the petitioner and the officers/officials of the department. The main reason for the creation of such a situation seems the fact that Income‑tax Circles at Bannu are neglected by the higher authorities. Had these authorities been visiting the circle regularly and solved petty problems on the spot such a situation would not have arisen. In order to create an atmosphere of goodwill between the tax payers, tax officials and the practising lawyers and for solution of the problems such as indicated in the complaint on the spot, it is recommended that C.B.R. direct that:

(i)That Additional Commissioner concerned pays visit to the Bannu Circles at least once in a quarter.

(ii)The Commissioner concerned pays an annual visit to these Circles.

(iii)C.B.R's policy regarding posting/transfers be followed and officials/officers with longer stay, particularly against whom complaints have been received be transferred to other station.

(iv)The RCIT, Northern Region, Islamabad to hold a meeting at CIT office, Peshawar between the complainant (Mr. Aslam Khan Marwat), Sarmast Khan Advocate, Rehmatullah han Advocate and the concerned officers/officials of the department to sort out the problems /grievances and take action for redressal.

(v)Compliance be made within 30 days and a report regarding (iv) be furnished within a week from the date of meeting.

C.M.A./844/FTOOrder accordingly.