HAJVERI OIL INDUSTRIES VS SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD, 2009 PTD-FEDERAL-TAX-OMBUDSMAN-PAKISTAN 116 (2008)

(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)---

----S.156---Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000)---Rectification of mistake---Jurisdiction---Mistake apparent on the face of record---Selection of case for detailed audit on 7-7-2007 by Commissioner at B while the Federal Board of Revenue had already passed an order for transferring jurisdiction in the case to Commissioner at M as on 18-6-2007---Validity---Federal Board of Revenue, on 18-6-2007, had already passed an order for transferring the jurisdiction in the case from Commissioner at B to Commissioner at M, it was also made clear therein that same was effective from 1-7-2007 meaning thereby that on 1-7-2007, the one Commissioner at B was not vested with the power to pass any order for selection of audit or otherwise---Decision suffered from mistake apparent on the face of record---Review application was accepted---Decision was recalled and Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended that Federal Board of Revenue was to direct Commissioner at M to ignore the order of selection of case of the complainant for audit by Commissioner at B, dated 7-7-2007 treating the same as non-existent being nullity as the same had been passed on the date when he had ceased to have jurisdiction of the matter and Commissioner at M to whom the jurisdiction stood transferred w.e.f. 1-7-2007 may proceed in accordance with law of his own.

(b) Income-tax---

----Jurisdiction---Any order passed by the competent higher authority for transferring of a case from one jurisdiction to another, order of conferring jurisdiction on an officer in the matter was effective from the date on which it was passed, may be some time was taken to communicate the said order, for the vesting of jurisdiction in an officer on the date when he passes an order is the requirement of law and not mere technicality.

Siraj-ud-Din Khalid for Petitioner.

Zafar Zaman Ranjha, T.O.

Date of hearing 24th June, 2008.

DECISION/FINDINGS

JUSTICE (RETD). MUNIR A. SHEIKH (FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN).---Review of decision, dated 24-3-2008 passed in C.No.153-L/2008 has been sought by the complainant on the ground that the same has suffered on account of mistake floating on the face of record.

2. The facts of the case in brief for disposal of this review application are that the case of the complainant was selected for detailed audit on 7-7-2007 by Commissioner, Bahawalpur. Before the said date, however, on 18-6-2007, the F.B.R. had already passed an order for transferring the jurisdiction in the case of the complainant to the Commissioner Multan Division. Subsequently, however, on 24-9-2007, the F.B.R. issued another order by virtue of which Additional Commissioner, Bahawalpur who was already looking after the work of Commissioner was conferred the power to look after the work of the Commissioner in judicial matters also in order to remove a doubt whether the previous order conferring on him power to look after the work of Commissioner did also include judicial power or not. However, this order does not have any bearing or effect on the merits of this case which have to be decided on the facts available on the record.

3. It is well-settled law that any order passed by the competent higher authority for transferring of a case from one jurisdiction to another, order of conferring jurisdiction on an officer in the matter is effective from the date on which it was passed may be some time was taken to communicate the said order, for the vesting of jurisdiction in an officer on the date when he passes an order is the requirement of law and not mere technicality. On 18-6-2007, the F.B.R. had already passed an order for transferring the jurisdiction in the case of the complainant from Bahawalpur to Commissioner, Multan. It was also made clear therein that the same was effective from 1-7-2007 meaning thereby that on 1-7-2007, the Commissioner, Bahawalpur was not vested with the power to pass any order in the case of the complainant for selection for audit or otherwise. It appears that during the hearing of the complaint, an impression was given as if order, dated 24-9-2007 had the effect of communicating the order, dated 18-6-2007 which was taken as if from the date of communication, the jurisdiction would be deemed to have been transferred on Commissioner, Multan and not before which view was not in accordance with law apart from the fact that order, dated 24-6-2007 did not have the effect of communication of order, dated 18-6-2007 because it speaks about something else as has been observed above.

4. For the foregoing reasons, the decision, dated 24-3-2008 suffers from mistake apparent on the face of record, therefore, this review application is accepted, the said decision is hereby recalled and on acceptance of the complaint, the following recommendations are made:--

(a) F.B.R. to direct Commissioner, Multan to ignore the order of selection of case of the complainant for audit by Commissioner, Bahawalpur, dated 7-7-2007 treating the same as non-existent being nullity as the same had been passed on the date when he had ceased to have jurisdiction of the matter.

(b) The Commissioner, Multan to whom the jurisdiction stood transferred w.e.f. 1-7-2007 may proceed in accordance with law of his own.

(c) The compliance shall be reported within 30 days.

C.M.A./102/FTOReview application allowed.