2003 PLP 1513 (PTD)
AKHLAQ CLOTH, HOUSE, FAISALABAD. Versus SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD
| Citation | 2003 PLP 1513 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Federal Tax Ombudsman |
| Bench Members | Justice (Retd.) Saleem Akhtar, Federal Tax Ombudsman |
| Parties | AKHLAQ CLOTH, HOUSE, FAISALABAD. Versus SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD |
| Primary Law | Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 PLP 1513 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2003 PLP 1513 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Federal Tax Ombudsman bench comprising: Justice (Retd.) Saleem Akhtar, Federal Tax Ombudsman.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2003 PLP 1513 (PTD) (AKHLAQ CLOTH, HOUSE, FAISALABAD. Versus SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Asif, ACIT for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 59(1)
C.B.R. Circular No.4 of 2001 dated 18-6-2001
Self Assessment Scheme, Para. 9(a)(ii)
C.B.R. Circular No.1/69/STS/2002, dated 8-12-2000, Para. IX
C.B.R. Circular C..No.1 (8)STS/2001, dated 8-6-2002
C.B.R. Circular. Letter No.7(7) S. Asstt/2001, dated 26-3-2002
Survey of Documentation of National Economy Ordinance (XV of 2000)
Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), S.9
Return was set apart by invoking Para. 9(a)(ii) of Central Board of Revenue's Circular No.4 of 2001, dated 18-6-2001 on the ground that sales declared were not commensurate with the sales agreed/assessed as per profile of Survey for Documentation- of Economy
Assessee contended that Army led Survey Team got the survey form signed under duress on sales which were highly unjustified and unfair
Sales declared were commensurate with the capital
Reasons confronted with by the Department to believe that complainant/assessee's case had more Revenue potential than already declared in the return of income were not valid
None of the criteria set forth by the Central Board of Revenue in the guidelines issued for selection of cases had been identified to be applicable to the case of complainant/assessee-Selection of return for audit thus was arbitrary and alleged "maladministration" was proved-- Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended that Central Board of Revenue direct exclusion of return from the list of cases selected under Para. 9(a)(ii) for audit and fox its' acceptance under Self-Assessment Scheme. Siraj-ud-Din Khalid for the Complainant.
Judgment & Decree
5. Responding to notice under, section 10(4) of the Ordinance, No.XXXV of 2000 the RCIT submitted that complainant filed objections on 17-10-2001 whereas his sales were assessed by Survey Team on agreed basis in early 2001. The objection was not filed within reasonable time from the date of estimation of turnover by the Survey Team. As such, the objection filed by the complainant being an after thought it was not entertainable in view of C.B.R.'s Circuar NO.1(8)STS/2001, dated 8-6-2002.
6. It has been submitted on behalf of the complainant that the reasons confronted by the learned RCIT are extraneous to the guidelines for selection of case, issued by the Central Board of Revenue.(C.B.R.) vide Circular Letter 'No.7(7) S. Asstt/2001, dated 26 March, 2002 in pursuance of Para 9(a)(ii) of Circular No.4 of 2001. These guidelines are as under:-- . (i) Evidence, information or reason to believe that true particulars of income have been suppressed and it is a Revenue potential case. (ii) Such selection may be based upon factors including:-- (a) Evident decline in income. (b) Any addition to the assets that is not covered by income declared. (Tax profiles of Survey and Registration may be consulted to identify such cases). (c) Disparity in expenses on utilities vis-a-vis income declared.
7. The counsel of the complainant therefore, has argued that the complainant has not received any response to the objection filed in writing to the turnover estimated by the Survey Team so far. It therefore, is premature to be consulted as a point of reference. The Regional Commissioner of Income Tax as such has transgressed the discretion vested in him. There is, therefore, no valid reason with him to believe that it is a Revenue potential case.
8. The submissions made on behalf of the two sides are considered. It is found that the complainant has achieved better turnover, income has increased over the assessed income in preceding year and tax paid is 20% higher over the tax paid last year.
9. It is found that the reasons which the complainant is confronted with by the RCIT to believe that complainant's case has more Revenue potential than already declared in the return of income are not valid: None of the criteria set forth by the Central Board of Revenue in. the guidelines issued vide No.7(7) S. Asstt. 2001, dated 26-3-2002 for selection of case by the Regional Commissioners has been identified to applicable to the case of complainant. Selection of his return for audit, therefore, is arbitrary. The alleged maladministration is proved.
10. It is recommended that:-- (i) The C.B.R. directs exclusion of return from the list of cases selected under Para. 9(a)(ii) for audit and for its acceptance under Self-Assessment Scheme. (ii) Compliance be reported within thirty days of this order. C.M.A./674/FTO Order accordingly.