DECISION /FINDINGS The complainant is the Superintending Engineer, Pak PWD incharge of the Government-owned buildings/residences etc. In this capacity he looks after the civil work of these buildings at Lahore, Gujranwala, Sialkot and Sahiwal. It is complained that the officers/officials of the Income-tax Department unduly pressurized him, and some other 9 officers/officials of Pak PWD, to accede to some unlawful and illegal demands like execution of Civil/Electrical/ Mechanical Works etc. Which could not be carried out by the complainant and his colleagues, without jeopardizing their own position. It is alleged that harassm ent was caused by selective and targeted issuing of notices under section 56 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 and under section 17 of the Wealth Tax Act, by the D.C.I.T. Circle 20, Zone-B, Lahore. It is alleged: "all the notices issued by the said Deputy Commissioner are based on the mala fide intention and to create harassment amongst the functionaries of Pak PWD for their own gains". It is, according to the complainant, "misuse of the official position".
2. The respondent in the reply in vide No.RCIT-J-85/FTO/B-SO 1/186, dated 2-10-2001 vehemently contends that the complainant is posted within the jurisdiction of Zone-B, Lahore and failed to file his Returns of Income and Wealth and, therefore, the D.C.I.T., Circle 20 was well within his legal right to issue the notices. The allegation of putting undue pressure is totally denied. The respondent further contends that the complainant has mentioned the names of 10 persons in the complaint (including his own) without having been authority from the remaining nine persons. The complaint filed by the complainant is also stated to be without jurisdiction as per section 9(2)(b) of the Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000.
3. It is true that the complaint is not accompanied with any Power of Attorney by the other persons in favour of the principal complaint. However, at the time of hearing Mr. Rais Khan was accompanied by Mr. Muhammad Sadiq, Superintending Engineer, whose name also finds place in the list of persons to whom the notices were issued. Since both Mr. Rais Khan and Mr. Muhammad Sadiq are Senior Officers in their Department the other 8 persons naturally have confidence in them to put forth their point of view. The fact, however, remain that all the 10 gentlemen have levelled serious allegations against the functionaries of Income-tax Department.
4.. Mr. Ghulam Rasool Malik, D.C.I.T. Who represented the respondent was heard. He could not successfully convince that the complainant fell out of jurisdiction under the provisions of section 9(2)(b) of the Establishment of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance. The complainant has made allegation of maladministration cognizance of which can be taken by the Federal Tax Ombudsman.
5. Mr. Rais Khan produced photostat copies of the correspondence exchanged between the Additional Commissioner, Eastern Region, Lahore, the Sepecial Assistant to the Commissioner of Income-tax, Zone-B, Lahore on the one hand and Superintending Engineer and Executive Engineer, Pak PWD, Lahore on the other, on the issue of carrying out the civil work in the Income-tax Building.
N.O.C. With regard to repairs of 'passenger lift' installed in the Income Tax Building, Zone-B, Lahore was also allegedly demanded by the Income-tax Department and since these demands could not be met, due to official restrictions, the D.C.I.T., Circle 20 was made an instrument for pressuring the officers/officials of Pak PWD so as to force them to accede to the demands of the Department. Mr. Ghulam Rasool, D.C.I.T. Could not refute that the correspondence did take place between the Income-tax Department and the Pak PWD but vigorously argued that no illegal demand was made to the officers of Pak PWD. He mentioned that it was the duty of Pak PWD to look after the Income Tax Building like any other Government building and to do civil work where necessary. Mr. Rais Khan, the complainant insisted that the N.O.C. With regard to the new lift installed in Kapoorthala House Building as demanded could not be issued by the Pak PWD as the said lift was installed C by a private company known as Jeewa Ji Company. It was, therefore, unfair on the part of the respondent to ask for N.O.C. With regard to the work which was not initially carried out by the complainant. The complainant, however, could not produce any documentary evidence in support of the allegation that civil work at official residences also was demanded.
6. As regards the issuance of notices under section 56 of the Income Tax Ordinance, and under section 17 it is true that the D.I.C.T. Circle 20, Zone-B, Lahore had the jurisdiction to issue these but it is not difficult to infer that D.C.I.T. Was used as a tool for pressuring the functionaries of Pak PWD to yield to the demand of the Income-tax Department. This inference gets support from the fact that ten persons from just one Department were targeted for the issuance of the above notices and that also soon after a disagreement on matters which were the subject of official correspondence.
Mr. Ghulam Rasool, D.C.I.T. Conceded that no notices were issued to any officers/officials of any other Department falling within the jurisdiction of Circle 20, during this period. Mr. Ghulam Rasool submitted, that after the filing of the complaint, the matter was discussed with the C.I.T., Zone-B, Lahore who verbally directed to 'file' the proceedings in those cases where NTN had been provided. At the present hearing, record as presented by the Representative of Revenue, was examined. It transpired that out of the ten persons to whom notices were issued four had already filed returns of income, and were existing assessees; one nad since been transferred, and three have come on transfer and were regularly assessed on their earlier place of postings. Notice to one gentleman has yet to be issued.
7. From the foregoing discovery of facts it transpires that the unpleasant circumstances preceding the complaint are a said episode and the resultant of mishandling of the situation by the Senior Officers of the two Departments. The targeted officers of the Pak PWD are all salaried person's from whom tax is deducted at source under section 50. As Government servants their place of postings have changed several times over the years and consequently their income-tax record also moved from one city to another. If there was genuine anxiety to have complete record at the present jurisdiction, it would have been far better for the D.C.I.T. To dispatch enquiry letters requesting to provide National Tax Numbers. Insisted notices under section 56 of the Income Tax Ordinance and under section 17 of the Wealth Tax Act, were selecting issued even ignoring that not all income- taxpayers are not necessarily wealth tax assessee also. It may be true that the D.C.I.T., by issuing notices under section 56 and under section 17 did not transgress his jurisdiction, yet the element of mala fide intention is clearly visible on the face of the record. The surrounding circumstances evidenced by the correspondence presented by the complainant clearly give out that the D.C.I.T.
Was acting under the influence of his seniors or taking action in collaboration with them. The impugned action and proceeding are mala fide, biased and discriminatory amounting to maladministration.
8. It is recommended that---
(i) impugned notices and proceedings taken in pursuance thereof be cancelled;
(ii) instructions be issued to the functionaries of the Department not to resort to discriminatory or retaliatory actions as it is bound to generate against functionaries of the Income-tax Departments vis-a-vis taxpayer of whatever category;
(iii) a compliance report be submitted within 30 days of the receipt of this order. .