FINDINGS MUSHT AQ AHMAD SUKHERA, FEDERA L TAX OMBUDSMAN.---- The complaints were filed under Section 10(1) of the Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000 (FTO Ordinance) against delay in issuance of refund for Tax Years 2016 to 2019. All the complaints having identical issues are disposed of through a single consolidated order .
2. Precisely , the Complainant, a salaried individual, e-filed returns of income for Tax Years 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019, under Section 114(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 (the Ordinance), claiming refund amounting to Rs.0.050, Rs.0.049, Rs.0.096 and Rs.0.051 million, respectively . According to the Complainant, the refund applications for Tax Years 2016 to 2019, were e-filed on 27.04.2020. However , despite repeated efforts of the Complainant, the Department (Deptt) failed to pass orders under section 170(4) of the Ordinance, within the stipulated time. The Complainant has also prayed for additional payment for delayed refund in terms of section 171(1) of the Ordinance.
3. The complaints were referred for Para-wise comments to the Secretary Revenue Division, in terms of Section 10(4) of the FTO Ordinance read with Section 9(1) of the Federal Ombudsmen Institutional Reforms Act, 2013. In response thereto, the Commissioner-IR, Multan RTO Multan, forwarded parawise comments of the Commissioner- IR, Corporate Zone, Multan dated 07.09.2020 vide letters dated 07.09.2020. At the outset, preliminary objection regarding bar of jurisdiction in terms of section 9(2)(b) of the FTO Ordinance, was raised. Reliance was placed on the orders of Hon'ble President of Pakistan vide Nos.190/FT O/2016 dated 27.03.2017, 01/FT O/2017 dated 16.03.2017, 75/FT O/2016 dated 31.08.2016, 79/FT O/2016 dated 31.08.2016; 05/FTO/2016 dated 16.08.2016 and 01/FT O/2017 dated 02.05.2017 and the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Mst. Kaniz Fatima reported as (2001 SCMR 1493 ) and that of Hon'ble Lahore High Court in W.P. No.599/2017 (Shehzadi Polypropylene Industries v . Federation of Pakistan and others ).
4. On merits, it was contended that refund applications for Tax Years 2016 to 2019 already stood disposed of under Section 170(4) of the Ordinance, vide orders dated 24.08.2020. It was averred that against the above orders the Complainant had legal remedy of appeal available as provided under Section 170(5) of the Ordinance.
5. During hearing, the DR reiterated that the Complainant's refund applications for Tax Years 2016 to 2019 have already been disposed of under Section 170(4) of the Ordinance, vide orders dated 24.08.2020. The AR on his part contended that the Deptt failed to pass orders under section 170(4) of the Ordinance, within 60 days of filing of refund applications for Tax years 2016 to 2019, thus maladministration stood established against the Deptt.
6. Both the parties heard and record perused.
7. It is an admitted position that before filing of the instant complaints, the Deptt had already disposed of Complainant's refund applications for Tax Years 2016 to 2019, under Section 170(4) of the Ordinance vide orders dated 24.08.2020. Thus, grievance of the Complainant regarding disposal of the refund application had already been redressed.
8. In view of the foregoing facts, complaints being bereft of any merit, stand rejected. Files be consigned to record.