DECISION JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEMI AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN - Brief facts of the case are that the complainant an A.O.P., derived income from running an Adda for commercial transport. Return for the assessm ent year 2002-2003 was filed under Self-Assessment Scheme declaring an income of Rs. 2,00,000/-. The case was however selected for total audit and proceeding the concerned Taxation Officer, Circle-20, Rawalpindi. Mr. Hussain Shahzad Raja called upon the complainant through their representative expressing his intention to extend its services is helping regarding finalization of assessm ent if the complainant met his demands as a reciprocal gesture. Then the Assessing Officer himself contacted one of the members on telephone and made demand of Rs.
5,00,000/- which was refused and it was later on reduced to Rs. 2,00,000/-. Apprehending injustice from the Assessing Officer the complainant filed an application on 18.6.2003 with the C.I.T., Rawalpindi for transfer of the case to some other circle and again on 19.6.2003 verbally explained the position op which the C.I.T, assumed that the matter would be settled amicably and asked the complainant to attend his office on 28.6.2003. Meanwhile the Assessing Officer issued a notice under Section 62. Of the repealed Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 for 24.6.2003. This notice was affixed on another shop without bothering to serve it on the complainant. On being informed by the shopkeeper the complainant tried to take out the notice, and in this process it was torne into several places. Thereupon the complainant moved an application to the Assessing Officer on 20.6.2003 demanding a copy of the notice, which was received by the complainant through registered post on 24.6.2003, the date of submission of reply. The complainant received an assessm ent order dated 25.6.2003 on 27.6.2003 with tax demand of Rs. 21.80,616/-. The complainant met the C.I.T, on the fixed date 28.6.2003 and brought the new facts to his knowledge which he already seemed to be aware of but showed his inability to do anything when the assessm ent order had been passed. The C.I.T, however asked the complainant to file an affidavit regarding charge against the Taxation Officer and the same was filed before the C.I.T, on 28.6.2003.
The complainant has raised the following questions:-
(1) Was it justified to continue the proceedings by the Taxation Officer when a report had been called for by C.I.T, for the transfer of jurisdiction and why the C.I.T, did not take any action when he was informed well before assessm ent regarding biased attitude of the Taxation Officer?
(2) Whether the assessm ent order is not mala fide as it was made in haste without giving opportunity to the taxpayer and an outcome of personal grudge to punish the complainant for defying the demand of the Taxation Officer?
(3) Whether the Assessing Officer was not in connivance with supervisory officer because both of them totally ignored th6 letter issued by the C.I.T, calling for the report and before the decision was taken by him on the issue the petitioner was sacked.
3. It is contended that assessm ent was made without affording sufficient time to the complainant and it could not be called a proper, judicious and fair order. The Assessing Officer allegedly became vindictive, as the complainant did not grease his palm, It is prayed that the complainant be saved from the mala fide and corrupt behaviour of the Taxation Officer Mr. Hussain Shehzad Raja and necessary action be taken against him.
4. In reply the respondent has stated that concerned Assessing Officer had refuted the complainant's charges of contacting him on telephone and demanding illegal gratifications. The officer also stated that he was certain that Mr. Abdul Ghafoor had called him on telephone twice and in the first call offered some temptations which were refused and in the second call after receipt of assessm ent order had uttered a package of intimidation, threats and name droppings, It is further stated that according to the C.I.T's. Report the Taxation Officer hastily finalized the assessm ent and did not even wait for his decision on complainant's application for transfer of jurisdiction, It is stated that at present the C.I.T.(A) had set aside the case for de novo consideration and in order to allay the fears of the complainant the jurisdiction of the case had been transferred to another circle, It is further stated that the C.I.T, had been ordered to get a fact finding enquiry conducted in the matter from an Additional Commissioner of some other Range and that further progress would be communicated after receipt of the enquiry report.
5. Representatives of the both sides attended and reiterated their contentions which were considered and relevant record was examined, It is submitted by the respondent in the reply that the Taxation Officer had acted hastily in finalizing the case and did not even wait for the C.I.T's. Decision on the complainant's application for transfer of jurisdiction. The record also showed that the complainant was not afforded sufficient time to represent his case as the copy of notice under Section 62 which was torne during the process of taking out was dispatched to the complainant through registered post on 21.5.2003 and was received by him on 24.5.2003, the date of hearing/filing of reply. The C.I.T. (A) had also noted that no chance of hearing was given to the appellant (complainant) and that the assessment order was prima facie arbitrary, In the circumstances of the case the right course was that the C.I.T, should have stayed the assessment proceedings pending decision on the complainant's application for transfer of jurisdiction. From the above facts it is clear that the Assessing Officer acted mala fide in framing the assessment and for improper motive passed order hastily and without affording proper opportunity of being heard to the complainant. The said officer acted with predetermined mind and arbitrarily.
Maladministration is established.
6. In view of the foregoing it is recommended that:--
(i) An inquiry be conducted by the Director General Enquiries, C.B.R, against the Assessing Officer.
The enquiry should cover the complainant's allegations including demand of bribe about which he had made a written complaint to the Commissioner of Income Tax, Rawalpindi on 28.6.2003 and framing a hasty assessm ent order which has been aside.
(ii) Compliance be reported within 30 days.