DECISION /FINDINGS ' The complainant has alleged maladministration on the part of the Income Tax Department for refusal to (i) give credit of tax paid under sections 53, 50 (7E) (7F) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 (hereinafter called the repealed Ordinance), and (iii) issue refund of tax paid in excess.
2. The complainant, a manufacture of sanitary items which are exported as well as locally supplied filed a statement under section 143B of the repealed Ordinance for the years ending 30-6-2000 and 30-6-2001 showing exports sales and supplies, including details of tax paid under the aforesaid sections. The Taxation Officer picked up export sales and tax paid thereon only and finalized the assessm ent under section 59A for two years vide order, dated 8-5-2002. The complainant filed application for rectification for credit of tax other than paid under section 50(5A) of the repealed Ordinance. The Taxation Officer in response to complainant's letters, dated 25/26- 12-2002 requesting for issuance of refund, replied vide his letter, dated 28-1-2003 that the complainant filed statement under section 143B which is full and final amount of discharge of tax liability and as such no refund could be issued where section 80CC is attracted. The rejection of application for rectification under section 156 is the cause of grievance.
2. In their reply, the respondents have stated that the complainant, had submitted a statement under section 143B disclosing export sales and local supplies for assessment years 2000-2001 and 2001-2002. No proof relating to payment of advance tax under section 53 was available on record.
The record shows that the complainant claimed credit of tax deducted on account of export sales under section 50(5A), (7G), (7E) and (7F) of the Ordinance. The claim of the deduction of tax under section 50(7G), (7E) and (7F) is yet to be verified because most of the electricity, telephone and sui gas bills are not in the name of the complainant and there A no proof of payment of advance tax.
Except for one connection none of the electricity, telephone and sui gas connection A are either in the names of members of the AOP or in the name of the business concern, which require verification. The assessee should have provided original bills, copies of rent deeds and certificates from owners of the premises to prove that the utility bills had been paid by the assessee and not the owner. The complainant is not entitled to claim credit on account of excessive deduction of tax under section 50, (7G, E and F) as he did not provide the documents and certificates. However, the concerned officer has been advised to call for the original bills of electricity, sui gas and telephone, copies of rent deed etc. For proper verification to allow the credit under section 221 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 and the refund, if due, will be issued as per the relevant provisions of the law.
3. No one appeared for the complainant. The department was, however, represented. The complaint, is, therefore, taken up for decision on merits, D.R. Reiterated the arguments, which were earlier advanced in respondents' written reply to the complaint. He emphasized that the complainant had not submitted the relevant bills and documents to enable the department to verify the particulars and that once those are submitted the same will be verified.
4. The arguments of the D.R. And the record of the case have been examined and considered. It is observed that the Taxation Officer failed to make proper assessment on the basis of statement filed by the complainant under section 143B of the repealed Ordinance. The assessments were made under section 59A in respect of Export sales and local supplies but the aggregate amount of tax paid was totally ignored. The Assessing Officer's attitude towards disposal of application filed by the complainant under section 156 of the Ordinance was causal and arbitrary. The respondents have now stated that the Taxation Officer has been asked to call for the requisite documents from the complainant for making necessary verification and allow credit of tax claimed under section 221 of the Ordinance, 2001 and to issue the refund, if due. There is obvious maladministration. It is, therefore, recommended that:--
(i) The application, dated 25-11-2002 for rectification should be processed, credits verified and refund, if due, be issued to the complainant under section 170 read with section 221 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.
(ii) The Taxation Officer may be advised not to make assessments and dispose of application for rectification in a slipshod manner.
(iii) Compliance report to be submitted within 30 days of the receipt of this order.