DECISION /FINDING ' JUSTICE (RETD.) MUNIR A. SHEIKH, (FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN).----The complainant due to rush of work filed the Income Tax Return of assessment year 2002-2003 in Circle 21, Nankana. The Taxation Officer of the Circle transferred the return to Circle 20, Muridke. Since it was under the 'Self- Assessm ent Scheme' it would be deemed to have been as an assessment order. However, the Taxation Officer, Circle 20, Muridke issued a short document notice, dated 23-10-2002. He was requested to transfer the return to the concerned Circle but the complainant got no response. The same Taxation Officer was transferred to Circle 8, Zone-C, Lahore who issued a combined notice to the complainant in the name of "Muhammad Tariq Khan and Karyana Dealer Tridewaly" for assessm ent years 2001-2002 and 2002-2003 under section 56 of the repealed Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. The complainant requested the Taxation Officer to withdraw the notice for assessm ent years 2002-2003, but after a lapse of about one year he received the impugned order and demand notice on 23-8-2005. The complainant's grievance is that the subsequent assessm ent order served on him on 23-8-2005 is without jurisdiction and illegal amounting to 'maladministration'. He has requested that the impugned order be declared null and void.
2. In the reply submitted by the R.C.I.T., Eastern Region, Lahore it is stated that the contention of the tax-payer regarding filing of the return is correct. He filed return under 'Self-Assessment Scheme' in time which was deemed to have been accepted as such. At the time of making the ex parte impugned assessm ent the evidence regarding filing of return by the complainant was not available. So prima facie it is a case of double assessment. The concerned C.I.T. Has been advised to cancel the impugned order under section 122-A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 for assessm ent year 2002-2003.
3. On the date of hearing i,e, 30-12-2005 Mr. Muhammad Ghias-ud-Din (D.C.I.T.) appeared for the respondent. He submitted that the concerned C.I.T. Had been advised to set aside the impugned order redressing the complainant's grievance. None appeared for the complainant, but he sent an application requesting for withdrawal of the complaint as his grievance was being redressed by the respondent. In view of this position the investigation of the complaint is closed and file consigned to record.