SABIR HUSSAIN VS SECRETARY REVENUE, DIVISION, ISLAMABAD, 2006 PTD-FEDERAL-TAX-OMBUDSMAN-PAKISTAN 1501 (2005)

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

----S. 2(3)---Maladministration---Complainant visited office of Regional Commissioner of Income Tax and filed an application mentioning names of certain persons who had acquired properties or were running prosperous business but were evading tax---Certain taxpayers were also identified who were underassessed due to malpractices---Addresses of as many as 80 persons/establishments were provided who were not on tax rolls---Complainant insinuated that no action had been taken in that regard---On enquiry about the progress of the matter from Regional Commissioner of Income Tax Office, complainant was directed to contact an Inspecting Additional Commissioner who "cold-shouldered him" which was indicative of the fact that "she did not perform her duties diligently and honestly"---Federal Tax Ombudsman was requested that in addition to action against tax evaders, those responsible for putting the information in cold storage may also be punished---Validity---Overall picture supported suspicions of a collusion and attempt to cover up, charges alleged by the complainant---Lapses identified betrayed "neglect, inattention, delay, incompetence and inefficiency in the administration or discharge of duties and responsibility" falling in the category of "maladministration"---Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended that the person who received the complaint and misplaced it, be identified and subjected to action under Removal from Service Ordinance, 2000 as amended in 2002; that the officers responsible for delay in the office of Regional Commissioner of Income Tax and the office of Commissioner of Income Tax, be identified and subjected to `warning', copies of which be placed on Performance Evaluation Reports; that Inspecting Additional Commissioner, who promised to tender the evidence next day and defaulted to present the same without any excuse, be called to explain her conduct placing a copy on her Performance Evaluation Report for adverse view and that copy of information submitted by the complainant as admittedly received from the Central Board of Revenue be processed and the outcome communicated within 30 days of the receipt of order.

Rana Qaisar Ali and Gulfam Arshad for the Complainant.

Tallat Altaf Raja (IAC) and Ishtiaq Ahmad (D-CIT) for Respondents.

FINDINGS/DECISION

JUSTICE (RETD.) MUNIR A. SHAIKH, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN.---This complaint alleges lack of action on an application filed with the R-CIT, Eastern Region, Lahore on 24-9-2004 identifying existing taxpayers and others who were evading tax.

2.Briefly the facts are that the Complainant-Individual personally visited office of the R-CIT, Eastern Region, Lahore and filed an application on 24-9-2003 mentioning names of certain persons who had acquired properties or were running prosperous business but were evading tax. It also identified certain taxpayers by mentioning their NTNs, who were allegedly underassessed due to malpractices. In addition, addresses. of as many as 80 persons/establishments were provided who were not on the tax rolls. The complainant insinuated that no action has been taken in this regard and when he visited the office of R-CIT to enquire about progress in the matter he was directed to contact an IAC (Ms. Tallat Altaf Raja) who "cold shouldered him" which is indicative that "she did not perform her duties diligently and honestly". It is prayed that in addition to action against tax evaders, those responsible for putting the information in- cold storage may also be punished.

3. Respondent have forwarded parawise comments by R-CIT, Eastern Region, Lahore reporting: ``the record of this office is completely silent regarding receipt of such complaint during June-December, 2003 as confirmed by Mr. Muhammad Azam Baig, Receipt Clerk ". It is, however, admitted that the complaint "received from the Board along with the captioned complaint has now been sent to CIT, Zone-C, Lahore for necessary action on the point of jurisdiction". It is prayed that the complaint may please be rejected being devoid of merit.

4. Rana Qaisar Ali (Advocate) learned counsel for the complainant submitted that after filing the complaint, he visited the office of IAC (Headquarter) Mr. Mustafa Ashraf who asked him to see Ms. Tallat Altaf Raja (IAC) who heads the Intelligence Cell and is responsible for such enquiries. The learned counsel insisted that the lady did not show any interest in the matter and cold shouldered him which is indicative that she neglected the performance of her duties diligently and honestly because she neither attended dutifully to the complaint nor did she peruse the matter in earnest. According to the learned counsel, she did not care the least to find out as to what action was taken on the complaint.

5. Ms. Tallat Altaf Raja (IAC) who appeared for the Respondent vociferously denied having ever seen or met the complainant. She submitted that neither the complaint, has ever been received in the office, as reported by the R-CIT, nor the complainant ever contacted her. She, however, admitted that a copy of the complaint received in the R-CIT office, through the C.B.R., was forwarded to the CIT, Zone-C, Lahore on 13-10-2004 for a comprehensive report which is awaited despite reminders, dated 3-11-2004 and 11-11-2004.

6. During the hearing Ms. Tallat was asked to contact the CIT, Zone-C, Lahore and send for the file so that it could be ascertained as to what progress has been made. The DR expressed difficulty by pointing out that as many as over 80 persons have been identified in the complaint hence full information may not have been gathered as yet. She was then advised to bring the file from the CIT, Zone-C, Lahore office so that it could be ascertained that the action as required has been initiated and whether the matter is being actively perused. Since the office of the CIT, Zone-C is situated in a different locality than the main Income Tax Office, she promised to bring all relevant evidence by next morning. This she failed to do, thus strengthening the suspicion that matter is not being dealt with in the required manner:

(i) The information furnished initially by the Complainant on 24-9-2004 was misplaced and its receipt is totally denied by the R-CIT despite the fact that the office copy submitted by the complainant bears stamp/signature and date of R-CIT office. The veracity of this stamped document has not been disputed (copy placed on record).

(ii) A copy of the complaint received from C.B.R. was forwarded to the CIT, Zone-C, Lahore on 13-11-2004 perhaps it has deliberately not been mentioned as to when the document was received from C.B.R. The file of the R-CIT though asked for was not presented.

(iii) Initially vide letter, dated 13-10-2004 the R-CIT required the CIT to submit "a comprehensive report" by 20-10-2004 yet the date was extended suo motu to 5-11-2004 and the then 18-11-2004. Even after the expiry of this extended date, no reminder has'been issued nor an explanation called for the delay, till the date of hearing today.

It is apprehended that similar indifferent attitude may have prevailed in the Commissioner's office also which primarily is the reason for not presenting the record of the Commissioner office or to report the progress in the matter. This overall picture supports suspicions of a collusion and attempt to cover up, alleged by the complainant. The lapses identified above betray "neglect, inattention, delay, incompetence and inefficiency in the administration or discharge of duties and responsibility" falling in the category of "maladministration" as defined in Clause (3) of section 2 of the Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000. It is, therefore, Recommended that:---

(i) The person who received the complaint and misplaced it, be identified and subjected to action under the Removal from Service Ordinance, 2000 as amended in 2002.

(ii) The officers responsible for delay in the office of R-CIT and the office of the CIT, Zon-C, Lahore be identified and subjected to `warning', copies of which be placed on their Performance Evaluation Reports (=old ACRs).

(iii) Ms. Tallat Altaf Raja (IAC) who promised to tender the evidence next day and defaulted to present the same without any excuse, be called to explain her conduct placing a copy on her Performance Evaluation Report for adverse view.

(iv) Copy of information submitted by the complainant has admittedly received from the C.B.R. be processed and the outcome communicated within 30 days of the receipt of this order.

7. At a subsequent stage Mr. Muzammil Hussain (DCIT) of Zone-C, Lahore attended to report that enquiry in respect of all the cases identified by the complainant, has been initiated. He extended the assurance that as soon as the assessments are finalized, award as per Rules would be given to the complainant. On this assurance, the complaint is held to be premature hence Filed and the case is Closed.

8. Compliance report be submitted within 45 days of the receipt of this Order.

C.M . A . /405/FTO(L)Order accordingly.