SALEEM AKHTAR, J.- The complainant is a private limited company providing Private Security Services. For the assessm ent years 1993-94 to 1996-97 the company was assessed under Section 61 of the Income Tax Ordinance. However proceeding under Section 66-A was drawn and order was passed on 30.9.1998 holding that nature of business of the company is such which cannot be classified under the head 'service rendered1 and therefore assessment is to be made under 80C of the Income Tax Ordinance. The complainant has filed an appeal against this order before the Tribunal, which is pending. As a consequence of order under Section 66A assessment for the years 1993-94 to 1996-97 were framed afresh against which the complainant has filed appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal.
2. The other part of the complaint is that a letter dated 29.5.2001 was written to the Chairman CBR pointing out to the problems faced by Private Security Services Organizations, It was stated in this letter that non-inclusion of security services amongst the professions providing service happened due to lack of proper understanding about the concept, scope, and operation of such service. Due to this reason authorities formulating the rules on the subject have casually treated who probably pictured a security service as a Chowkidar in olden day. The complainant traced the history of security service in modern time which started after the World War II based on the experience gained from the activities of saboteurs and agents causing dame and destruction. Brinks of USA were poineers of this business but the profession as such took root in the developed countries after World War II. In Pakistan the security business on professional lines is less than two decades old. It was pleaded that concept of security service as provided these days cannot be equated with stevedoring or the work of an electrician or motor mechanic. The main object of the representation was that the status of security companies may be re-examined and be classified amongst the professional such as accountants, lawyers, advisers and consultants. This representation was initiated as security service business has been treated differently and is being subject to presumptive tax regime. As no reply was received from the Chairman CBR the complainant wrote a letter on13.7.2001 to the Special Officer endorsing a copy to the Chairman CBR but no reply was received. The complainant constantly pursued by writing letters dated 16.7.200.1, 15.8.2001 and 10.9.2001 but no response was received from the Chairman CBR. Similar letter was addressed to the Finance Minister and three letters on the same subject were written on 27.9.2001, 2.10.2001 and 16.10.2001 to the Commissioner of Income Tax, copy of which was endorsed to the Chairman CBR.
None of the letters were replied or even acknowledged ny anyone of the officials.
3. The main object of Brig. (R) Aftab Ahmed was to bring home to the relevant officials the concept of service rendered by security companies which should be clearly understood, It after understanding the viewpoint the CBR may justify or consider for amendment in the relevant Rules and laws. The complainant presented a security assessment of a particular company, prepared for its clients which is exhaustive and knowledgeable. This assessment deals with problems of security relating to law and order the environment of the plant and machinery, the apprehended dangers, accidents, proposals and advise in respect of security and emergency plan. From this brochure, which also contains the recommendations, the concept of security service rendered by the company is very clear, It does not seem to be restricted to posting of guard but it appears that the complainant company is rendering advisory service, preparation of assessment and report in respect of security of installation and companies which is besides the guard service provided in respect of houses, shops and business centres.
4. Now coming to the assessm ents, as the matter is sub judice before the Tribunal and the same questions have been raised in this complaint it is not possible to interfere with the assessment orders.
5. Reverting to the second part it is clear that the complainant has been writing letter to the Chairman CBR from 29.5.2001 and has one way or the other sent communications upto 16.10.2001 but no letter has been acknowledged much less replied. The object of complainant's representation was to present its case for getting the same treatment which service oriented assessee are enjoying. However, the attitude of the Tax Administrator is distressing and confirms the general complaint of this nature, In the past in complaints of the same nature directions and recommendations were made that the letters written by the assessee or any person should at least be acknowledged within two weeks and replied within three weeks. This direction which was of general application, is found to be violated and not complied by the CBR itself. This reflects upon the conduct of business and the treatment meted to the tax-payers and amounts to mal- administration.
6. Mr. Qasim Samad Khan has pointed out that the Government has initiated some proceedings and has presented copy of a letter of the Commissioner Income Tax dated 13.10.2001 addressed to the Regional Commissioner on the subject of inclusion of private security service in the Presumptive Tax Regime, It has been stated in this letter that security agencies are providing services of security guards generally under the contract to different concerns. This concept of security services rendered, according to the complaint, is narrow in the present scenario. The Commissioner without discussing or hearing the complainant concluded that the representation has no merit and should be rejected, It seems that this letter is in response to the representation made by the complainant to the Commissioner of Income Tax. It is not clear whether the CBR has.
Initiated any action to probe and study this problem, It has not been communicated to the complainant. The non-response by CBR and keeping tight over the matter and failure to reply the complainant's letter is a deliberate omission in performance of its duties and responsibilities. Such representations deal with policy matters which have collective effect and must be discussed with the party and if necessary with other relevant persons. Such representations should not be discarded or rejected unilaterally.
7. It is therefore recommended that:-
(i) Chairman CBR or Member of CBR to hear the complainant's representation and give him full opportunity to explain the case and then make order on the representations made by the complainant dated 29.5.2001, 16.7.001, 15.8 .2001 and 10.9.2001.
(ii) Chairman CBR to explain the reasons, for not replying the afore stated letters addressed to him.
(iii) Compliance be made within 30 days.