FINDINGS ' ABDUR RAUF CHAUDHRY, (FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN).---The complaint has been filed under section 10(1) of the Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000 (the Ordinance) against issuance of show cause notice (SCN) by deptt. On the basis of the order of the Commissioner-IR (Appeals) dated 22.02.2017 in Appeal No, 193/2017 against which the Complainant has filed appeal before the ATIR.
2. The complaint was sent for comments to Secretary Revenue Division, in terms of Section 10(4) of the Ordinance. In response, the deptt. Submitted its comments vide letter No, 1(49)TO-II/2017 dated 25.04.2017 raising preliminary objection about jurisdiction under Section 9(2)(b) of the Ordinance as the matter pertained to assessment and determination of tax liability. On facts it has been contended that case has been taken up in the light of directions of CIR (Appeals) and filing of appeal by the Complainant before the ATIR is just to avoid de novo proceedings. It was also stated that provisions of section 45A(2) of the Act were not applicable in this case as deptt has just issued hearing notice for fresh appraisal of facts of the case in the light of direction issued by CIR (Appeals).
3. The view points of both sides have been perused along with relevant record. It is evident that appeal filed by the Complainant against the order of CIR (Appeals) in Appeal No,193 of 2017 being sub judice before ATIR, bar on FTO's jurisdiction in terms of section 9(2)(a) appears applicable.
Moreover, on the issue of SCN it is held by the Islamabad High Court in Writ Petition No,1238 of 2013 (Auditor General of Pakistan v. FTO) that "Challenge to a show-cause notice is not different than filing a petition on the basis of an apprehension or a speculation. Such a petition is premature and not mature for adjudication.
4. In view of supra, the complaint is rejected and case file consigned to record.