Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)---

----Ss. 59(1) & 61---Self-Assessment---Short document notice---Service- Benefit of doubt---Cutting of signature and date of service on the notice- Initiation of proceedings under normal law for non compliance within the due date---Validity---Office copy of short document notice showed four cuttings of the signatures and date of service---Somebody had been trying to forge the signatures of the assessee and put the required date---Such was an act of sheer maladministration ---Cuttings were admitted by the Department in its reply---Whole affair was doubtful and benefit of doubt must go to the assessee---Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended that the return of the assessee be accepted under Self-Assessment Scheme and an enquiry be conducted to fix the responsibility of cuttings and forgeries on the short documents notice.

Muhammad Saleem Malik for the Complainant.

Iftikhar Baloch for Respondent.

DECISION/FINDINGS

Brief facts of the case are that the complainant derived income from running a private hospital. For the assessment year 2000-2001 return was filed under Self-Assessment Scheme. A short document notice, dated 25-1-2001 was allegedly received on 26-2-2001 and in reply the required documents were submitted on 3-3-2001 within prescribed time limit of 15 days. But the case was declared disqualified for SAS for late filing of short documents and assessment proceedings under normal law were initiated by serving notices under sections 61 & 62 of the repealed Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. It is further stated by the complainant that notice server of the department did not take his signatures on the office copy of the short document notice and his signatures and date of service were forged by the income tax officials which is evident from the cuttings of signatures and dates of service. It is prayed that notice issued under section 61 for normal assessment proceedings be declared illegal and return of the complainant be ordered to be accepted under SAS.

2. In reply the respondent has stated that the complainant had not filed wealth statement with the return for the year 2000-2001 under SAS. A short document notice was therefore issued on 25-1-2001 which was served on 4-2-2001 and the complainant was required to furnish the documents within 15 days but the compliance was made late as on 3-3-2001 and the case was therefore, excluded from the purview of the SAS. It is stated that although there was a cutting on the signatures and date of service of short document notice, the proper date of service i.e. 4-2-2001 stood confirmed from the relevant order sheet entry. It is further stated that the office copy of the notice bear two dates of service i.e. 3-2-2001 and 4-2-2001 and the rely filed on 3-3-2001 was in any case late and the case was rightly excluded for the Self-Assessment Scheme.

3. Representatives of the both sides appeared and reiterated their contentions which were considered and relevant record was examined. Perusal of the office copy of the short documents notice showed four cuttings of the signatures and date of service. It seems that somebody had been trying to forge the signatures of the complainant and put the, required date. This is an act of sheer maladministration. These cuttings A were admitted by the respondent in his reply. It has made the whole affair doubtful and the benefit of doubt must go to the complainant. It is therefore. recommended that:--

(i)The return of the complainant for the year 2000-2001 be accepted under Self-Assessment Scheme and compliance be reported within 30 days.

(ii)An enquiry be conducted to fix the responsibility of cuttings and forgeries on the short documents notice and a compliance report in this respect be furnished within 60 days.

C.M.A./1054/FTOOrder accordingly.