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

‑‑‑‑S. 59(1)‑‑‑Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), S. 9‑‑‑Self‑assessment‑‑‑Assessment year 2001‑2002‑‑‑Selection of cases for Total Audit‑‑Allotment of new National Tax Number‑‑‑Errors and discrepancies enumerated.

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

‑‑‑‑S. 59(1)‑‑‑Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), S.9‑‑‑C.B.R. Circular No.4 of 2001, dated 18‑6‑2001, para. 9(a)(i)‑‑‑Self‑assessment‑‑‑Selection of cases through computer ballot ‑‑‑Maladministration was alleged in selection of returns for total audit by assigning new National Tax Number with prefix "Z", arbitrarily either substituting already allotted National Tax Number with prefix "Z": or substituting TR Numbers through manipulation of ballot programme‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑No human element design or choice was involved either in allocation of new National Tax Number with prefix "Z" or in ballot results‑‑‑No. maladministration was thus found‑‑ Selection of returns for audit was declared to be in accordance with law by the Federal Tax Ombudsman.

Munir Ahmad, Kashif Dildar Bhatti, Riaz Mohay‑ud‑Din, Ghias Ahmed Malik and Mr. Zafar for the Complainants.

Asghar Ali Ch., Senior Project Manager, Lahore, Mujahid Naeem, Manager, Faisalabad, Ahsanul Haq, Manager DPU (Faisalabad) and Iftikhar Ahmad, Manager, Sargodha for Respondent.

DECISION/FINDING

Maladministration is alleged in these complaints on the part of Regional Commissioner, Income Tax, Central Region Multan for selecting their returns of income pertaining to assessment year 2001‑2002 for total audit by assigning new NTN with prefix "Z", arbitrarily either substituting already allotted NTN with prefix 'Z' or substituting TR Numbers through manipulation of ballot programme.

2. Responding to the notice under section 10(4) of Ordinance XXXV of 2000 the RCIT has submitted that the cases were selected through Computer balloting as provided in para. 9(a)(i) of Board's Circular No.4 of 2001 regarding Self‑Assessment for the assessment year 2001‑2002. The specific point raised by the complainants regarding selection of the cases by either arbitrarily or through manipulation by tax employees in the Region or by any other design is baseless and factually incorrect. It has been further submitted that the new NTN with prefix `Z' have been allotted through the computer programme as nation wide temporary NTN with prefix 'Z' to all cases that were either allotted Zone wise 'Z' NTN or T.R. Numbers. Any arbitrariness, manipulation or bias is totally, denied. Representative of the two sides alongwith the Representatives of PRAL are heard.

3. Representatives of the two sides are heard. Officials from PRAL were given exclusive hearing to explain the procedure adopted for such selection.

4. It has been stated by the respondents that all particulars of returns were fed to the computer manually and afterwards entries were matched/verified on the basis of data available in the master index. For all returns Checks applied for verification were matching of NIC Number and NTN. If either of two did not match with the mater index a temporary NTN with prefix 'Z' was allocated by computer as per programme.

5. In case where the status of assessee was other than "individual" an individual having his unique NIC Number can possibly sign other than their own individual return in his capacity a member of AOP. Partner of a firm or Principal Officer of a company. Such artificial juridical persons do not have any NIC Number. In such cases matching of the NTN on return with any NIC number available in the master index is totally out of question. The computer software, therefore, automatically allocates a temporary NTN with the prefix 'Z' to such cases.

6. This flaw in the software design is attributed by the PRAL officials to inadequate briefing by C. B. R., who are supposed to educate the programmers with Tax Laws. Generally DCITs and IACs coordinate the programming process. And they ignored this factor.

7. As regards the NTN data available in the master index it was noted that first NTN entered therein was issued prior to 1995 thereafter new NTNs were issued in 1999 and master index was updated. These NTNs are generally available with the assessee. However, after June 2000 a third NTN, called universal NTN replaced the old NTNs in case of assessees who applied for new NTN designed to conform to the planned shift from circle based structure to function based structure. Accordingly Circle and Zone codes were omitted. These NTNs were either not issued or not delivered to assessees for one reason or the other but in the master index these were substituted. In such cases too matching of NIC number with NTN reported by assessee on the return was out of question.

8. It has also been admitted that out of total returns filed for the assessment year 2001‑2002, 43% were on TR (trial) number.

9. Thus errors of following categories occurred:‑‑‑

(I) An error of manual omissions or commissions in each list e.g. a return not qualifying under SAS marked 'Y' and vice versa.

(II) Selected case of AOP, RF, URF and companies with substituted temporary NTN having prefix 'Z'.

(III) In certain other cases name of individual signatory of return who wrote his NIC number in the return. of AOP, RF, URF or company is picked against NTN of such artificial juridical persons.

(IV) Manually allotted temporary number with prefix 'Z' were replaced with computer assigned nation‑wide numbers.

(V) All TR numbers were also replaced with nation‑wise 'Z' numbers.

(VI) Where any reason manually allotted NTN were not entered in computer a new number was assigned by computer.

(VII) Where no NTN was mentioned on the return and no NTN was assigned to such assessee by the computer in the year 2000 or later, a 'Z' number was assigned by computer.

(VIII) The case, where return is picked by NTN without the name of assessee. (PRAL has admitted that it is programming discrepancy. However, in most of the cases discrepancy has been duly addressed by the Department.)

10. Return actually selected by computer random ballot in the first seven cases cap be traced back and identified through the computer software itself. These prima facie discrepancies have occurred for valid reasons and no maladministration is involved. Selections are valid.

11. Reply of RCIT is found factually correct because there is no human element, design or choice involved either in allocation of new NTN with prefix 'Z' or in ballot results. No maladministration is found. Selection of returns for audit is in accordance with law. Files are closed.

C.M.A./587/FTOOrder accordingly.