LAL KHAN VS SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD
2004 P T D 1133
[Federal Tax Ombudsman]
Before Justice (Retd.) Saleem Akhtar, Federal Tax Ombudsman
LAL KHAN
Versus
SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD
Complaint No. 900 of 2003, decided on /01/.
th
October, 2003. (a) Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000)-----
----S. 9(2)(b)---Jurisdiction, functions and powers of the Federal Tax Ombudsman---Scope---Jurisdiction of Federal Tax Ombudsman was not ousted in cases where definite maladministration on the part of tax functionaries was found.
(b) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)-----
----Ss. 56 & 65---Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), S. 2(3)---Notice for furnishing return of total income---Foreign remittances---Assessment without issuance of notice under S.56 or 65 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 --- Validity---' Assessment was quite illegal because it had admittedly been made without issuing any notice under S. 56 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 requiring the filing of a return---No notice under S.65 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 was issued either---Federal 'Tax Ombudsman recommended that the assessment be cancelled under S. 122A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.
None for the Complainant.
Freedoon A. Sheik, ACIT for Respondent.
FINDINGS/DECISION
This is a complaint relating to an ex parte income tax assessment for the year 2000-2001 made in the case of the complainant's son Muhammad Latif by the Assessing Officer on 22-4-2003. The complaint contains the following main points:--
(i)The complainant's son has been residing in the USA for 13
years.
(ii)A property was purchased on 7-7-1999 for,Rs.1,200,000 and the entire amount was sent from abroad by the complainant's son. .
(iii)About ten months back the complainant learnt that the income tax department wanted to look into the investment and he sent his explanation in this regard to the Assessing Officer.
(iv)The Assessing Officer, however, imposed income tax of Rs.328,900 (in the case of the complainant's son).
(v)The complainant is about 80 years old and can hardly sit, stand or see while the complainant's son is in the USA and has not come to Pakistan since the payment of the earnest money for purchase of the property.
(vi)The complainant is being unnecessarily bothered with regard to the demand raised in his son's case.
2. The respondent's reply has been received in which it is stated that the remedy of appeal is available in the case and the matter, therefore, falls outside the jurisdiction of the Federal Tax Ombudsman in the light of section 9(2)(b) of the Establishment of the Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000. The assessment made in the case of the complainant's son Muhammad Latif has also been defended on merits.
3. The respondent's .reply has been considered and as regards the preliminary contention in the context of section 9(2)(b) of the Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000 it has been observed in several findings that the jurisdiction of the Tax Ombudsman is not ousted in cases where definite maladministration on the part of tax functionaries is found. in the instant case is seen that assessment for the year 20-10-2001 was quite illegal because it had admittedly been made without issuing any notice under section 56 of the repealed Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 requiring the filing of a tax return. No notice under section 65 was issued either.
4. In the light of the above, it is recommended that--
(i)The assessment for year 2000-2001 made in the name or Muhammad Latif on 22-2-2003 be cancelled under section 122A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.
(ii)Compliance be reported within 30 days.
C.M.A./1056/FTOOrder accordingly