Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)‑‑‑

‑‑‑‑Ss. 63 & 19‑‑‑Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001), S. 122‑A‑‑ Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), S. 2(3)‑‑‑Best judgment assessment‑‑‑Assessment was made in respect of property on which no rent was earned by the complainant/ assessee during his stay out of country for treatment of his fractured legs and was treated as non‑resident‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Assessments had already been set aside under S. 122‑A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001‑‑ Assessing Officer had been dismissed from service on the charges of inefficiency and misconduct‑‑‑Notice under 5.122‑A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 was initiated when the complaint was filed in the Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman‑‑‑Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended that the proceedings under S.122‑A, Income Tax Ordinance, 2000 be completed within 30 days since all the relevant documents have already been provided by the complainant.

S. Amer Ahmad for the Complainant.

Altaf Mohammad Khan, D.C.I.T. for Respondent.

Shahida Taj, Director Dealing Officer.

FINDINGS/DECISION

The complainant is a retired Government servant. He is aggrieved by the assessments framed in his case under section 63 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 (repealed). Briefly the facts are that a plot measuring 35 x 80 was allotted to the complainant on ownership basis by the Federal Government Housing Foundation. Ground Floor of the house was rented on a monthly rent of Rs. 9420, with effect from 9‑4‑1997. He received advance rent from 9‑4‑1997, to 8‑4‑1998 amounting to Rs.104,562 after deducting income‑tax: When the complainant went to USA for treatment of his fractured legs, he received notice during his stay in USA at his residential address in Pakistan. It is submitted that his friend in Pakistan apprised the income‑tax officer of the facts of the case and submitted the required documents alongwith the returns of Income for the assessment years 199.7‑98 to 1998‑99 on 13‑5‑2000.

2. It is alleged that he has been, treated as non‑resident and without hearing anything from the tax department his assessments were finalized after creating income‑tax demand as under:‑‑

Assessment YearTax Levied

1.1994.95Rs.47,426

2.1995‑96.Rs.28,938

3.1996‑97Rs.26,224

4.1997‑98Rs.23,511

5.1998‑99Rs.24,853

3. It is stated that no rent was earned by him during the income year relevant to the assessment years, 1994‑95, 1995‑96 and 1996‑97 except his pension. For the year, 1997‑98, his income was below taxable limits. It is therefore, pleaded that the taxation officer may be directed to pass correct assessments orders framed in his case are arbitrary and without holding in to the facts of the case.

4. The department in its reply stated that the assessments for the years, 1994‑95 to 1998‑99 have already been set aside under section 122‑A of the Income Tax Ordinance, dated 22‑11‑2003 by the concerned Commissioner of the Income Tax. It is pointed out that the officer who had completed the assessments has already been dismissed from service on the charges of inefficiency misconduct. The respondents on the date of heating also produced the copy of order under sec tion 122‑A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. The AR on behalf of the complainants also acknowledged the efforts of the department. However, it appears from the record that notice under section 122‑A was initiated when the complaint was filed in the Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman.

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

(i) The proceedings under section 122‑A be completed within 30 days since all the relevant documents have already been ' provided by the complainant.

(ii) Compliance report be submitted within 15 days after the service of assessment orders.

C.M.A./103/FTOOrder accordingly.