DECISION /FINDINGS This complaint has been filed blaming the Department for inaction on the request for rectification of assessm ent for the year 2002-2003 to give credit for deductions under sections 50(7E) and 50(F) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 (hereinafter called the repealed Ordinance).
2. The facts leading to the complaint are that Return for the year 2002-2003 was filed declaring income Rs,72,200 on which tax demand came to Rs,915. Deductions under sections 50(7E) and 50(7F) of the repealed Ordinance aggregated Rs,5,920 resulting in a refund of Rs,5,005. However, the assessm ent order, when received showed ND (=No Demand/Refund) because tax liability of Rs, 915 was squired up by allowing credit for an equal amount.
3. The Respondent have forwarded R-CIT Central Region, Multan para-wise comments which admit the error but attribute delay in issuance of the claimed refund to non-filing of proof of payment by way of original challans and lease deed showing that the property where Electric meter and Telephone were installed was wholly in the use of the Complainant and not shared by the anyone else. It concludes by submitting "the matter is under consideration, therefore, rectification will be made on receipt of proof of payment/deduction tax".
4. The learned counsel for the Complainant Mr. Amir Hussain (ITP) submitted that the acknowledgement of filing of Return clearly shows that 11 Electricity bills and 5 Telephone bills were attached claiming aggregate deduction of Rs, 5, 920 but credit was given for only Rs, 915. It was alleged that some Electricity/Telephone bills were removed leaving only 2 on record which total Rs, 960 (Rs, 360 + 600), still credit was given for Rs, 915 for which there was no basis except mala fide and "maladministration" aimed at depriving Complainant of full benefit. The learned counsel carried the allegation of mala fide still further by presenting a notice under section 61, dated 24-4- 2003 and a letter, dated 30-4-2003, calling for details in respect of years, 1996-97 to 2001-2002 in total disregard of the fact that as per proviso to section 56 of the repealed Ordinance Returns could only be summoned for a period as far back as 5 years only. The A.R. Was emphatic that this vindictive and mala fide action was vicious vengeance as a reaction for filing the complaint on 3- 4-2003 and, therefore, the functionaries should be taken to task. For this the Complainant identified Mr. Muhammad Saeed I.T.O. Circle 2 Bahawalpur characterizing him as incompetent to discharge his duties and responsibilities.
5. Syed Shahid Hussain (D-CIT) appearing for the Revenue extended the assurance that as soon as the certificate from the owner of the premises and other documents are submitted, the refund would be issued. According to him notice under section 61 etc. Were issued in routine and apparently no mala fide was involved.
6. Scrutiny of record reveals several deficiencies which betray "maladministration":--
(i) The receipt of Return mentions enclosures showing aggregated deduction at source at Rs,5,920 yet credit was given for only Rs915. The Assessing Officer could reject the evidence in full or accept it in full.
(ii) The "receipt of documents" clearly states that as many as 11 electricity bills and 5 telephone bills were attached yet on the record of department only 2 of these are obtaining. This is a pointer to some tampering of record.
(iii) Though notice under section 56 of the repealed Ordinance was issued on 6-9-2001 calling for Returns for the years 1996-97 to 2001-2002 yet no further proceedings were taken up till 30-4-2003.
The neglect by the Assessing Officer is glaring because the matter was not pursued for 19 months (September, 2001 to April, 2003).
7. The above deficiencies reveal "maladministration" on various counts, as defined in clause (3) of section 2 of the Establishment of the Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000. It is, therefore, recommended that:---
(i) The rectification application filed on 21-3-2003 should be processed and the resultant refund issued under section 170 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.
(ii) The Commissioner to institute an enquiry so as to determine as to who committed the tampering of record and proceeded against those found guilty under the E&D Rules, 1973.
8. Compliance be reported within 30 days of the receipt of this Order.