1. FINDINGS /DECISION The complainant had filed his return for the assessment year 1998-99 allegedly under Self- Assessm ent Scheme showing total income of Rs.3,42,296 and income-tax amounting to Rs.30,724 was paid. A notice under section 61 was received by the complainant in respect of assessment years 1998-99 and 1999-2000 for appearance before the D.C.I.T. On 6-12-2000 alongwith complete books-of-accounts. The complainant enquired the reasons for excluding the return from the Self- Assessm ent Scheme. In spite of several reminders, no reply was received and ultimately on 15-5- 2001 when the Advocate for the complainant appeared before the D.C.I.T. She stated that tax paid this year was less than the tax paid in the last assessment year 1997-98 and, therefore, the return did not qualify for acceptance under S.A,S. However, the complainant's Advocate reiterated his point of view contending that in the light of first and second proviso to sub-clause (b) of clause (2) of Circular, dated 21-7-1998 complainant was entitled to the benefits of Self-Assessment Scheme.
2. The Assessing Officer proceeded with the assessment and passed assessment. The Department in reply stated that the complainant Advocate was duly informed about the reasons for excluding the return from Self-Assessm ent Scheme and that during proceedings the defects in the accounts books were pointed out for proper explanation by the assessee.
3. The learned counsel contended that no order for excluding the return from Self-Assessment Scheme was passed and further that notice under proviso to section 62 was never issued and thus opportunity to reply the alleged defects was not provided.
4. On perusal of the record, it seems that the complainant has filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) which was pending at the time the complaint was received in this office. In the memo. Of appeal, the complainant has challenged the order inter alia on the ground that the D.C.I.T. Has erred in law in not accepting the return under S.A.S. And further that on notice under proviso to subsection (1) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 was given to the complainant.
5. According to the contention of the learned counsel for the complainant, these two issues constitute "maladministration". The complainant has raised these very issues before the appellate forum which was pending at the time of filing of his complaint. Therefore, it A cannot be entertained and the case is closed. It may be clarified that in cases where appeal or revision is pending and the issue of "maladministration" has not been raised there, the same can be agitated before the Federal Tax Ombudsman. .