ASIM WEAVING FACTORY, FAISALABAD VS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEVISION, ISLAMABAD., 2003 PTD-FEDERAL-TAX-OMBUDSMAN-PAKISTAN 2784 (2002)

Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)‑‑‑

‑‑‑‑S. 59(1)‑‑‑C.B.R. Circular No.4 of 2001, dated 18‑6‑2001, para. 9(a)(i)‑‑‑Self‑Assessment Scheme‑‑‑Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), S.2(3)‑‑‑Self assessment‑‑‑Assessment year 2001‑2002‑‑‑Selection of case for total audit through computer random ballot by allotment of National Tax Number with prefix `Z' without intimating such National Tax Number to assessee‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Without prejudice to the grounds, of complainant/ assessee's appeal no maladministration was found in selection of complainant/ as se ssee's return for audit‑‑‑Investigation was closed by the Federal Tax Ombudsman.

Muhammad Asif, Member AOP for the Complainant.

M. Masood Ahmed, ACIT for Respondent.

FINDINGS/DECISION

Maladministration is alleged in the instant complaint on the part of the Income Tax Department for inclusion of complainant's return of income in computer ballot, to set apart returns of income for total audit, without intimating the NTN applied for the first time.

2. Responding to the notice under section 10(4) of Ordinance XXXV of 2000 it has been admitted on behalf of the respondent that the complainant an AOP commencing weaving business with 96 power looms since July 1, 2000 applied for allotment of NTN on 19‑10‑2001. However, NTN was not allotted till the date of filing of return. The complainant filed return under section 55 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 (Repealed) for assessment year 2001‑2002 in Circle 09, Faisalabad, mentioning in NTN Column Zone Code 03, Circular Code 09 and personal Code NEW.

3. The intimation of allotment of NTN 086611 with prefix `Z' was received alongwith the intimation that the return had been picked for total audit through computer ballot. Notices‑under section 58 in the name of members and notice under section 61 in respect of AOP were sent for compliance on 10‑4‑2002.

4. It is further submitted that the return was processed according to computer programme developed for all the returns filed by assessees who had not been allotted NTN till then.

5. Representatives of the parties have been heard. It transpires that there was neither any maladministration on the part of any tax employee nor any mala fide on the part of PRAL or Revenue Division in developing the software for processing the returns of income filed by new assessees. There was no human choice involved in the process that picked complainant's return of income for audit.

6. Besides, audit of complainant's return has been completed and assessment has been made on 24‑6‑2002 and served on 23‑8‑2002. It has been impugned in appeal filed before the CIT (Appeals) on September 16, 2002 prior to filing of the instant complaint. Appeal has been filed on the grounds of alleged infirmity in law, excessiveness of estimate of conversion receipts and the disallowances made out of claims of overhead expenses.

7. Without prejudice to the grounds of complainant's appeal, no maladministration is found in selection of complainant's return for audit. The investigation is closed.

C.M.A./859/FTOAppeal rejected.