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

‑‑‑‑S. 2(3)‑‑‑Maladministration‑‑‑Ignoring the letters and not replying for months in spite' of reminders and personal visits, amounts to mal administration on the part of Department.

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

‑‑‑‑S.4‑A‑‑‑Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), S.9‑‑‑Appointment of firms of accountants‑Non-payment of fee/commission due to non‑availability of funds‑‑‑Department stated that Administrative Officer had asked the office to pay to the claimant but with no progress‑‑‑Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended that Central Board of Revenue to finalize and pay the fee to the complainant within one month.

DECISION/FINDINGS

The claimant is a Cost and Management Accountant who was nominated by the C.B.R. for‑ assessment work in respect of outsourced special audit cases of Income Tax for assessment year 1997‑98. Such nomination was made on 13‑2‑1998 and 28 cases were entrusted to him. He finalised all the cases and requested for payment of fee and commission through bills for Rs.1,10,000 against fee/remuneration and Rs.63,930 against commission in accordance with the advertisement which appeared in daily "JANG", Lahore on 28‑11‑1997. After submitting the bills the claimant has been writing letters and reminders and visiting the office of the Commissioner but to no avail. He has claimed that his bills be paid and matter be settled.

2. In reply the department admitted the nomination and the work performed by the claimant and pleaded that claimant's bills remained under process and pending due, to non‑availability of necessary funds and the claimant was, duly informed. It was further stated that claim is pending only due to non‑availability of necessary funds for which proposal for allotment has duly been made by CIT, Bahawalpur on 18‑11‑2000. It is denied that any maladministration has been committed by the department.

3. From the facts it is clear that the claimant's bills have not been paid and admittedly it was due to non‑availability of funds. It is very strange that appointments are made services are rendered and yet no steps are taken to make the funds available. It is sheer mismanagement that without having funds or obtaining the funds services of Chartered Accountants and Cost and Management Accountants are obtained and even after services are rendered their remuneration is not paid. This should have been visualized by the department and funds should have been obtained within a reason able time. The most disappointing aspect is that during 18‑6‑1999 to 30‑3‑2000 the claimant had written nine letters on different dates but none was replied. The first reply came as late as `on 30‑6‑2000. Again from 5‑8‑2000 up to 28‑3‑2000 seven ‑reminders and letters were issued and reply was made on 14‑4‑2000. No explanation for not replying the letters has been offered. The delay in completely ignoring the letters and not replying it for months together in spite of reminders and personal visits amounts to maladministration on the part of the department. The claim is admitted and a justification sheet was also issued in which is stated that the Administrative Officer Commissioner Income Tax/Wealth Tax Bahawalpur Zone, Bahawalpur has written that the office has to pay sum of Rs.1,74,000 to the claimant which was sent to the Second Secretary (Exp. Bud), C.B.R. on 18‑11‑2000 but till today there does not seem to be any progress. It is recommended that C.B.R. to finalise and pay Rs.1,74,000 to the claimant within one month and report compliance within one week thereafter.

C.M.A./610/FTOOrder accordingly.