Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)‑‑‑

‑‑‑‑Ss. 13(1)(aa) & 63‑‑‑Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), S. 2(3)‑‑‑Addition‑‑‑Gift through cross cheque‑‑‑Copy of cross cheque and gift declaration was filed‑‑‑Demand of donor's bank statement from the donee ‑‑‑Donee failed to file the same‑‑‑Addition‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Assessing Officer had been calling different documents/information piecemeal on different dates and in the end insisted on the production of bank statement of the donor, which was not within the reach of the Complainant/assessee‑‑‑Evidence furnished in the course of assessment proceedings had not been duly considered which amounted to maladministration ‑‑‑Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended that the assessment for the year 2001‑2002 be cancelled under S.122 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 and a fresh assessment be made after affording the complainant an opportunity of being heard and after giving the consideration to the evidence/documents produced by him.

Saeed Anwaar Siddiqui for the Complainant.

Jafer Nawaz, DCIT for Respondent.

FINDINGS/DECISION

This complaint has been filed contesting the ex parte income tax assessment order for the year 2001‑2002 as arbitrary and unjustified.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant, invested a sum of Rs.1,3,12,500 in the purchase of a property on 16‑3‑2001. On receipt of notices from the concerned Taxation Officer, the complainant states to have explained that he had received a sum of Rs.1,350,000 as gift through crossed cheque which was reflected in his bank statement a copy of which was furnished to the Taxation Officer alongwith a copy of the crossed cheque and gift declaration. The Taxation Officer did not consider this evidence and passed an ex parte assessment order whereby the investment of Rs.1,312,500 has been subjected to tax as unexplained investment under section 13(1)(aa) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, hence the complaint.

3. The reply of the respondent has been received in which the assessment order has been defended to be valid and in accordance with law. It is submitted that the complainant had failed to furnish the copy of ID card and bank statement of the donor to prove the transaction of Rs.1,350,000 from the bank account of the donor to that of the complainant.

4. The representatives of the two sides were heard and relevant record was examined. The AR of the complainant argued that he had furnished sufficient evidence to prove the receipt of the amount of Rs.1,350,000 through banking channel by filing a copy of the bank statement depicting the receipt of the said amount. Wealth statement, reconciliation statement as well as the declaration of gift were also furnished. It was contented that obtaining the copy of bank account of the donor was not possible for him and if the Assessing Officer wanted it to be furnished he could have called for it from the donor on his own authority under the law. This contention of the learned counsel is valid. The perusal of the assessment order shows that Assessing Officer had been calling different documents/information piecemeal on different dates and in the end insisted on the production of bank statement of the donor, which was not within the reach of the complainant. The evidence furnished by the complainant and his counsel in the course of assessment proceedings has not been duly considered which amounts to maladministration.

5. In view of the foregoing, it is recommended that:‑‑

(i) the assessment for the year 2001‑2002 be cancelled under section 122 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 anal a fresh ,assessment be made after affording the complainant an opportunity of being heard and after giving due consideration to the evidence/documents produced by him.

(ii) Compliance be made within 30 days.

C.M.A./998/FTOOrder accordingly.