Messrs STAR LINK, (GLAMOUR SHOPPING MALL), through Messrs Tahir Law Associates, Sukkur VS SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD, 2007 PTD-FEDERAL-TAX-OMBUDSMAN-PAKISTAN 2027 (2007)

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

----S.12---Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001), S.120---Defiance of recommendations---Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended the assessee, to file normal return of such income and then raise question of payment of refund which shall be decided by the Taxation Officer---Assessee filed return of income of discount which according to him shall be deemed to have been accepted under Self-Assessment Scheme as deemed assessment under S.120 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001---Assessing Officer Found that the entire income was covered under presumptive tax regime, there Fore, no refund could be claimed---Assessee contended that Departmental Authorities should be proceeded against and be punished for contempt of Federal Tex Ombudsman's office by not adhering in letter and spirit to the stand taken by them before the Federal Tax Ombudsman in proceedings in the complaint---Validity---Contention of the assessee was misconceived as the order was only that the assessee should file normal return if he was of the view that income earned through discount was not covered by presumptive tax regime and if the same was filed the Taxation Officer should decide the same vi accordance with. law---Taxation Officer through rectification order had found that said income, in his opinion was covered by presumptive tax regime, which could not be said to have been contrary to the stand earlier taken by the department in the complaint---Assessee had been given relief by the First Appellate Authority---As the matter stood concluded by the said order, application being misconceived was dismissed by the Federal Tax Ombudsman.

Abdul Tahir Ansari for the Complainant.

Nemo for Respondent.

FINDINGS/DECISION

JUSTICE (RETD.) MUNIR A. SHAIKH, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN.---In the garb of this application seeking review of decision dated 17-10-2006 the complainant wants that departmental authorities should be proceeded against and be punished for contempt of this office by not adhering in letter and spirit to the stand taken by them before this office in proceedings in the complaint.

2. The case of the complainant was that he was earning both through commission and also discount. According to him the income through commission is liable to pay tax and under presumptive tax regime about full and final settlement of liability of which no refund is payable but income earned through discount' is normal case of income tax ip respect of which refund may become due.

3. In the complaint this office directed the complainant to file normal return of such income and then raise question of payment of refund which shall be decided by the taxation officer.

4. The complainant filed return of income of discount which according to him' shall be deemed to have been accepted under Self-Assessment Scheme as deemed assessment under section 120 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. However, the taxation officer held that the entire income was covered under presumptive lax regime, therefore, no refund could be claimed in respect thereof. This order was challenged by the complainant before C.I.T. Appeals and the plea raised by the complainant was accepted and it was held that the said part of income was not covered by presumptive tax regime and the complainant was declared to be entitled to the refund of the amount of tax paid in excess.

5. The complainant's case is that taxation officer while passing order of rectification holding that entire income was covered by the presumptive tax regime, went against the stand taken by the department before this office in the complaint that normal return should be filed.

6. I am afraid the contention of the complainant is misconceived as the stand taken in the complaint by the respondent and the order was only that the complainant should file normal return if he was of the view that income earned through discount was not covered by presumptive tax regime and if .the same was filed the taxation officer should decide the same in accordance with law. The taxation officer through rectification order held that the said income in his opinion was covered by presumptive tax regime, therefore, which could not be said to have been contrary to the stand earlier taken by the department in the complaint.

7. The complainant has been given relief by the C.I.T. Appeals, therefore, the matter stands concluded by the said order, therefore, this application is misconceived which is accordingly dismissed.

C.M.A./90/FTOApplication dismissed.