Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)‑‑‑

‑‑‑‑Ss. 129 & 156‑‑‑Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), S.9‑‑‑Appeal to the Appellate Additional Commissioner‑‑‑Delay in filing of appeal ‑‑‑Condonation of delay‑‑ Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended that complainant should file appeal against the order passed by the Assessing Officer within a period of 30 days from the date of decision on complaint and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) may condone the delay and pass an order on merits‑‑‑Appellate Authority had held that appellant was unable to give any plausible reason for non‑filing of appeals within the time allowed by the Federal Tax Ombudsman, in spite of the explanation that delay in filing of appeal was beyond his control because the order of the Federal Tax Ombudsman dated 19‑2‑2001 was dispatched from Federal Tax Ombudsman Office on 14‑3‑2001 and it was received by him on 16‑3‑2001‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Appellate Authority had not mentioned .in his order the reason shown by the complainant for the late filing of appeal and had summarily found that no plausible reason had been given for late filing of appeal‑‑‑Order of the Appellate Authority suffered from error of omission insofar as reason offered by appellant for delay in filing of appeal and the plea for condonation of delay had been overlooked‑‑‑Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended that the Appellate Authority might recall his order, invoking his jurisdiction under S.156 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 and consider the reason given for delay in filing of appeal as well as the plea for condonation of delay on merits and to proceed in accordance with law in consequence of his findings‑‑ Registrar of the Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman was required to fix the responsibility for delay in dispatching the decision and to serve notice upon the person responsible for delay to explain why action should not be taken against him under the Rules.

Complainant in person.

Raza Muhammad, I.A.C. and Mazhar Iqbal, D.C.I.T. for Respondent.

FINDINGS/RECOMMENDATIONS

This complaint is filed against the decision of CIT (Appeals), Zone‑II, Islamabad for holding that the appellant was unable to give any plausible reason for non‑filing of appeals within the time allowed by the Federal Tax Ombudsman.

2. Briefly the facts are that the complainant had filed a complaint against the assessment order passed by the DCIT, Talagang for the charge year 1997‑98 making addition of deemed income under section 13(1) (aa) and imposing penalties under sections 108, 110 and 111 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. Complaint No. 24 of 2001 was filed in this office which was decided on 19‑2‑2001, recommending that the complainant should file appeal against the order passed by the DCIT within a period of 30 days from the date of decision on complaint and the CIT (Appeals) may condone the delay and pass an order on merits.

3. The complainant filed appeal on 11‑4‑1001 and submitted before the CIT (Appeals) that the delay in filing of appeal was beyond his control because order of the Federal Tax Ombudsman, dated 19‑2‑2001 was dispatched from Federal Tax Ombudsman Office on 14‑3‑2001 and it was received by him on 16‑3‑2001.

4. The CIT (Appeals), however, has not mentioned in his order the foregoing reason shown by the complainant for late filing of appeal. Instead, he has summarily held that no plausible reason has been given for the late filing of appeal.

5. The complainant as well as the representatives of the department have been heard and it is found that order of the CIT (Appeals) suffers from error of omission insofar as reason offered by the appellant for delay in filing of appeal and the plea for condonation of delay has been overlooked.

6. It is recommended that the CIT may recall his order, invoking his jurisdiction under section 156 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 and consider the reason given for delay in filing of appeal as well as the plea for condonation of delay on merits and to proceed in accordance with law in consequence of his findings.

7. The Registrar in this office is required to fix the responsibility for delay in dispatching the decision, dated 19‑2‑2001 in Complaint No.24 of 2001 and to serve notice upon the person responsible for delay to explain why action should not be taken against him under the Rules.

8. Compliance to be reported by 15‑8‑2002.

C.M.A./537/FTO Order accordingly.