DECISION/FINDINGS Complainant regarding "maladministration" emanating from non-payment of refund of Rs,760,424 for the assessm ent years 1995-96 to 1998-99 has been lodged against the D-CIT, Circle-17, Companies Zone-II, Lahore. As per IT-30s the refunds were created as under:--- Assessment year Refund Amount 1995-96 Rs.291,758 1996-97 260,609 1997-98 160,625 1998-99 47,422 670,414 The Respondent's report vide Reference No,RCIT-J/85/FTO/S.I.I./4863, dated 16-3-2002 states- "refund as mentioned in the complaint has been created. However, it may be added that out of total refund of Rs,47,422 pertaining to the assessment year 1998-99, demand of Rs,,31,806 for the year 1999-2000 had been adjusted through IT-104 leaving balance refund of Rs,15,616 for the assessm ent year 1998-99. The assessee has been requested to furnish original Challans of payment for verification. The refund will be issued within the shortest possible time after verification of payment deductions" '
2. The Respondent's report is incomplete in addition to being evasive. It does not at all refer to refund for the year 1995-96 to 1997-98 and confines itself to refund for the year 1998-99 only. The representative of the Revenue, Mr. Khadim Hussain Zahid, D-CIT requested for adjournment till 18- 4-2002 so as verify from record the position of payments made by the complainant. This was allowed on 18-4-2002 it was submitted by Mr. Khadim Hussain Zahid that Refund Voucher No.096/8218, dated 17-4-2002 for Rs.402,719 has been issued for the year 1996-97, 1997-98 and 1998-99. It was promised that the actul figures of refund for the assessment year 1995-96 will be sorted out within a fortnight and refund issued forthwith and refund issued year 1995-96 will be sorted out within a fortnight and refund issued forthwith. Not only the counter-foil of refund vocucher of Rs.402,719 (ibid) was presented by Mr. Khadim hussain Zahid, but the A.R. of the complainant confirned that the said refund voucher was duly received by him 17-4-2002.
3. The complainment A.R. expressed satisfaction about the effectiveness of the Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman which has resulted in alerting the rank and file of the Tax administration, an example of which is the prompt delivery of refund matter for the year 1995-96 for issuance within a fort night. Both the parties affirmed that there now remained no grievance. Since the grievance stands redressed, the case is closed.