Mian ISMAIL CHAUDHRY VS SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD
2004 P T D 1876
[Federal Tax Ombudsman]
Before Justice (Retd.) Saleem Akhtar, Federal Tax Ombudsman
Mian ISMAIL CHAUDHRY
Versus
SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD
Complaint No. 1123 of 2003, decided on /01/.
th
October, 2003. Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963)‑‑‑--
‑‑‑--Ss. 10 & 16(2)(4)‑‑‑Establishment of, Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), S. 2(3)‑‑‑Jurisdiction of wealth tax authorities‑‑‑Assessment‑‑‑Duplicate assessment‑‑‑Assessments were finalized in violation of the direction of the Appellate Authorities that the assessment record of the company be checked to find out the date on which the complainant had purchased the shares and then the assessment record of the complainant should be transferred from Islamabad to Peshawar on point of jurisdiction‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Two sets of assessments were on record which was illegal‑‑‑Directions of appellate authorities had not been carried out by the Assessing Officer according to which the assessment record of the complainant/assessee was to be transferred from Islamabad to Peshawar before taking decision which helped the Assessing Officer to know the facts of the case but the same was not done‑‑‑Intimation regarding assessment circle in Islamabad was sent to Appellate Tribunal but the same was not available on the Department's record‑‑‑Duplicate assessments were contrary to law and amounted to maladministration ‑‑‑Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended that the assessment record of the complainant be obtained from Islamabad through correspondence at Commissioner's level and the assessments for the years 1995‑96 to 1997‑98 be revised so that the complainant was not assessed twice and was charged to tax due from him according to law after providing him an opportunity of being heard.
Waseem Ahmad Siddiqui, C.A. for the Complainant.
Sardar Ali Khawaja, DCIT for Respondent.
FINDINGS/ DECISION
Brief facts of the case are that the complainant, a director of Messrs Tastor's Choice (Pvt.) Ltd. filed his return of wealth tax for assessment year 1998‑99 in the Companies Circle‑03, Peshawar. The Assessing Officer initiated the assessment proceedings for preceding years also i.e. from 1993‑94 to 1997‑98 and for non‑compliance of statutory notices under section 16(2) and 16(4) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963 made ex parte assessments for all the five years vide consolidated order, dated 30‑6‑2000. The complainant filed an appeal before the CIT(A) who vide his order, dated 20‑12‑2000 observed that the company in which the appellant was a director was incorporated on 21‑3‑1995 and as such prior to the assessment year 1995‑96 the jurisdiction did not invest with DCWT Peshawar and annulled the assessments for the years 1993‑94 and 1994‑95 being illegal and without jurisdiction whereas for the subsequent years 1995‑96 and 1997‑98 the orders were set aside with the directions to check the assessment record of the company to find out the date on which, the complainant had purchased the shares and then the assessment record Of the complainant should be transferred from Islamabad to Peshawar on point of jurisdiction and decision taken accordingly. On departmental appeal before the Tribunal the CIT(A) s order was confirmed.
2. It is further stated by the complainant that DCWT, Peshawar again made ex parte assessment's for the years 1995‑96 to 1997‑98 on 28‑6‑2003 without observing the directions of the appellate authorities as the assessment record of the complainant lying with the DCWT Islamabad was not got transferred to Peshawar for knowing the facts of the case which amounts to maladministration on the part of the Assessing Officer. It is also stated that presently the assessments for the years 1995‑96 to 1997‑98 made both by the DCWT, Islamabad and DCWT, Peshawar exist side by side which was illegal which was again an act of maladministration, hence this complaint for redressal.
3. In reply the respondent has stated that the assessments for the years 1995‑96 to 1997‑98 were made ex parte by the DCWT, Peshawar as the complainant did not respond to statutory notices and did not provide evidence regarding his assessments made by DCWT, Islamabad. It is stated that the complainant being director of Messrs Testor's Choice (Pvt.) Ltd. since March, 1995 was under legal obligation to file his returns for the assessment year 1995‑96 onwards with the DCWT Circle‑3, Companies Zone, Peshawar holding jurisdiction over the company and its directors. The assessments made by the officer holding jurisdiction were stated to be valid.
4. The representative of the both sides were heard and assessment record was examined. At present two sets of assessments are in existence for the years 1995‑96 to 1997‑98 which is illegal. The directions of the appellate authorities have not been carried out by the Assessing Officer according to which the assessment record of the complainant was to be transferred from Islamabad to Peshawar before taking decision. This would have helped the Assessing Officer to know the facts of the case but this was not done. The representative of the respondent stated that' record of the complainant could not be obtained from Islamabad for the reason that the particular circle of assessment of the complainant was not known. According to the AR of the complainant an intimation was, sent to the DCIT Circle‑03 Peshawar vide his letter, dated 6‑4‑2002 stating that the complainant was being assessed in Circle‑14 Islamabad at NTN 0345932. but this intimation was not available on the respondent's record. The present petition of duplicate assessments for the year 1995‑96 to 1997‑98 is contrary to law and amounts to maladministration.
5.In view of the foregoing it is recommended that:‑‑
(i)The assessment record of the complainant be obtained from Islamabad through correspondence at Commissioner's level and the assessments for the years 1995‑96 to 1997‑98 be revised so that the complainant is not assessed twice and is charged to tax due from him, according to law after providing him an, opportunity of being heard.
(ii)Compliance be reported within 60 days.
C.M.A./11/FTOOrder accordingly.