' This is a review application filed by the department in respect of findings, dated 2-4-2003 made in Complainant No,1943-L of 2002 by which it was recommended that reward in the case of Mr. Atif Mumtaz be worked out and paid to the complainant within 30 days. In the review application it has been alleged that the complaint filed by the complainant/informer contained general allegations, which was received in the Office of Commissioner on 25-9-1998 and forwarded to the IA C, and Assessing Officer on 30-10-1998. It has been stated that the complaint was directed against Messrs Mumtaz Jewellers and not against Mst. Ayesha Tanveer or Atif Mumtaz. It has further stated that no information was given as to whether these two persons ever owned any property in Liberty Market.
It has been stated that action under section 66A initiated on 24-9-1998 was not based on the contents of the complaint, which was initiated by IAC prior to the said complaint. Mr. Malik Ghulam Rasool reiterated the same fact. A perusal of the decision makes it clear that all these facts were stated during the hearing of the complaint and after due consideration a conscious finding was rendered and recommendation was accordingly made. No error apparent on the face of the record has been pointed out and therefore there is no ground for review of the recommendation/decision.
2. This case had been fixed earlier on 2-7-2003 but on that nobody had appeared for the department. The complainant had appeared and was heard. An application for adjournment through fax was received on 2-7-2003 after the order, dated 2-7-2003 had been passed, seeking explanation for non-appearance on the date of hearing and the progress of the implementation of the recommendation. In the application it has been stated that due to inadvertent mistake the departmental representative attended the Regional Office at Lahore instead of Islamabad. The mistake was realized too late and there was no time to reach Islamabad. Today Mr. Malik Ghulam Rasool has explained that he had been given letter, dated 29-6-2003 from the 'Office of the Commissioner of Income Tax to attend the hearing on 2-7-2003 at Lahore. This shows that it was the mistake of Commissioner's Office not of Mr. Malik Ghulam Rasool. The Commissioner's Office should be careful in future as such mistakes cause inconvenience and delay.
3. On question of implementation Mr. Malik Ghulam Rasool stated that as review had been filed no proceedings for implementation have been taken. The department has not filed- any representation against the decision. Mr. Malik Ghulam Rasool however, stated that Secretary, C.B.R.
Has advised that once review application is filed the proceedings A are stayed. The advice is completely incorrect. Mere filing of review application cannot operate- as stay of implementation of the decision unless specifically a stay order has been passed by the Federal Tax Ombudsman at the request of the party. In the present case no stay was requested nor such order has been passed. It is clarified that by filing review application implementation of the decision/finding is not stayed. The department is bound to implement the recommendations unless specific order of stay has been passed by the Federal Tax Ombudsman. However, taking a lenient view it is directed that the recommendation be implemented within 15 days. The review application is rejected.