FINDINGS /DECISION This complaint alleges "maladministration" represented by non-issuance of refund of Rs.130,158 for the assessm ent year 2001-2002.
2. Briefly the facts are that the Complainant-Individual is a manufacturer and supplier of tractor parts to Al-Ghazi and Millat Tractors. Return for the assessment year 2001-2002 was filed on 29-9- 2001 declaring Income Rs.429,713 and refund claimed at Rs.130,158 resulting from excess deductions at source under subsections (4), (7E) and (7F) of section 50 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 (hereinafter called the repealed Ordinance). Return was accepted by operation of law under subsection (4) of section 59 on 30-6-2002 though the assessment under section 59A of the repealed Ordinance was conveyed on 6-1-2004 through Demand Notice under section 85 and IT-
30. In the meantime the Complainant had applied for refund on 1-9-2003 followed by reminders on 9-1-2004 and 8-6-2004. The non-issuance of refund is the cause of grievance.
3. The Respondents have forwarded para-were comments by RCIT, Eastern Region, Lahore conveying that despite letter, dated 19-3-2004 and reminders, dated 24-4-2004 and 29-6-2004 the Manager, DPC/ PRAL, Karachi and Lahore have not responded to the Assessing Officer's request for verification of payments. The R-CIT has expressed helplessness: "unless the verification is made by the said DPCs the issue of refund will remain unresolved and factor of verification served as clog in the way of final disposal of the matter". The para-were comments concluded by submitting "the concerned Taxation Officer has been directed to get the exercise completed within the shortest possible time so that the claim of refund could be settled'.
4. Mr. Muhammad Nazir Shad (Advocate) appearing for the Complainant submitted that verification of challans is a internal matter of the Department. As far as the taxpayer is concerned his Return stood accepted on 30-6-2002, therefore, the money deducted in the Income year 2000- 2001 is being retained by the Government now for four years despite admission that the money is due to him. Therefore, the learned counsel canvassed, in addition to the refund the Complainant is entitled to additional compensation for delay in issuance of refund as per section 171 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 (hereinafter called the Ordinance).
5. Mr. Karamatullah (DCIT) representing the Revenue found it difficult to defend the case of the Department and repeated the same arguments as conveyed by the RCIT in par-were comments.
6. The scrutiny of record and perusal of circumstances reveal glaring "maladministration" as defined in Clause (3) of section 2 of the Establishment of the Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000 (hereinafter called the FTO Ordinance). In fact the R-CIT has admitted failure on the part of different wings of the Department to cooperate with B each other for the purpose of verification of deductions under section 501 despite the data being on record of the computer with DPC. If the monthly and annual Statements, as are required to be filed by the withholding agent under section 164 of the Ordinance read with Rule 49, are properly monitored and information disseminated to various Commissioners/Taxation Officers, the verification would be not a "clog in the way of final disposal of the matter". In the present case noncooperation by the PRAL has been manifestly identified by the RCIT. It is therefore, Recommended that:--
(i) The C.B.R. Issue instructions to the various agencies responsible for maintaining record of collection/direction by the withholding agents to cooperate with each other so as to facilitate verification as respects deposit of sums deducted at source.
(ii) The Commissioners should ensure that the information contained in Statements filed under Rule 49 of the Income Tax Rules is promptly disseminated among concerned Taxation Officers so that verification is not delayed.
(i.e) In the present case the Complainant having filed necessary certificates as required by subsection (2) of section 164, the same shall be treated as sufficient evidence of the collection of deductions for the purpose of section 168 and refund issued alongwith additional payment for delayed refund for the period commencing at the end of three month from 30-6-2002 and ending on the date on which it is paid.
7. Compliance report be submitted within 30 days of the receipt of this Order. .