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

‑‑‑‑S. 9‑‑‑Jurisdiction, functions and powers of the Federal Tax Ombuds man ‑‑‑S.R.O. 861(I)/2003‑‑‑S.R.O. 707(I)/2003, dated 12‑7‑2003‑‑ Review‑‑‑Review application for issuance of direction for extension of time of filing of returns by 90 days for assessment year 2002‑2003‑‑ Validity‑‑‑Inconvenience caused to the complainant was duly recognized in the findings/decisions and certain recommendations were also made so that such a situation did not arise in future‑‑‑Review application amounted to a plea for consideration points on which a considered finding had already been given and it was outside the scope of review‑‑ Plea for extension of. 90 days in the date of filing of returns for assessment year 2002‑2003 was not realistic in the present time‑‑‑Federal Tax Ombudsman found no reason to modify the findings/decision and matter was closed.

Khawaja Riaz Hussain, A.R. for Applicant.

ORDER

This is a review application filed by the complainant in Complaint No.1453 of 2003 which was decided through the combined findings/decision, dated 23‑12‑2003 in five complaints from Sahiwal. In the complaints it had been stated that the time available for filing of income‑tax returns for the assessment year 2002‑2003 had in effect been curtailed by the Revenue Division because of the uncertainty created by them about the format of the return forms and by rescinding S.R.O. 707, dated 12‑7‑2003 through S.R.O. 861 dated 1‑9‑2003 just a month before the due date of filing of returns viz. 30‑9‑2003. It was also contended that the extension in the date of filing which was allowed up to 11‑10‑2003 was inadequate and that 90 days time from the date of S.R.O. 861 should have been allowed. In the findings/decision it was observed that there had been no demand from the general public or from any trade body or Chamber of Commerce etc. for a general extension in date up to 31‑12‑2003 and if the complainants had any difficulty in filing the returns by 11‑10‑2003 they could have applied to the Commissioner for further extension in their individual cases. It was, however, further observed that as the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 was a new piece of legislation it would be advisable for the Revenue Division to make more' intensive efforts to educate the taxpayers with reference to tax laws and their own duties and responsibilities. It was also observed that if a notification required the taxpayers to file or furnish particulars and documents etc. a reasonable time should be allowed for such compliance and it should also be ensured that editorial mistakes are avoided in such notifications which are bound to create confusion. The cases were closed with these observations.

2. The review application filed by the complainant/applicant contains essentially the same points as in the complaint. It has also been prayed that S.R.O. 861(I)/2003 be recommended to be withdrawn so ail to restore S.R.O. 707(I)/2003, dated 12‑7‑2003 and the C.B.R. be also directed to issue a notification extending the time of filing of returns by 90 days. The plea in the review application has been considered and the applicant and the learned Advocate heard. The inconvenience caused to the complainant was duly recognized in the, findings/decision, dated 23‑12‑2003 and certain recommendations were also made so that such a situation does not arise in future. The plea in the review application amounts to a plea for consideration of points on which a considered finding has already been given and it is thus outside the scope of a review. The plea for an extension of 90 days in the date of filing of returns for the assessment year 2002‑2003 is also not realistic at this point of Time. There is thus no reason to modify the findings/decision, dated 23‑12‑2003 and the matter is accordingly closed.

C.M.A./64/FTOOrder accordingly.