2004 PLP 2048 (PTD)

5. Mr. Moazzam Bashir (D‑CIT) appearing for the Revenue on his turn referred to the observations by the Assessing Officer' in the assessment order that Circle Inspector was deputed to report about the extent of business and the assessment was based thereon‑hence there was no "maladministration" as statutory notices were issued, enquiry conducted and Income determined adhering to the provisions of law.

6. After hearing arguments by the sides record was examined which reveals that:‑‑ (i) Order sheet entry, dated 30‑12‑1998 states that as per AR of the assessee "the assessee had left Pakistan and no business was conducted by the time during the period relevant to the assessment year 1999‑2000" . (ii) The Inspector's report, dated 30‑6‑2001 states "as per your direction enquiry has been made which reveals that the assessee has left the business". (iii) Another enquiry report, dated 10‑6‑2002 reports "the business is on middle scale and is earning taxable Income assessment may please be finalized as under for the assessment years under consideration:‑‑ 1999‑2000 Rs.75,000 2000‑2001 Rs.80,000 2001‑2002 Rs.85,000 (iv) The assessment as framed is exactly the same as proposed by the Inspector at net amount without any calculation or working.

7. The copies of above documents have been brought on record. The conclusion is irresistible that the Assessing Officer, as also the Inspector, did not carry out their duties in a professionally efficient manner. The document on record as per order sheet entry, dated 30‑12‑1998 and the first report of the Inspector, dated 30‑6‑2001 were enough to establish that Returns were not filed because the complainant had left the country and had not carried on the business. The subsequent enquiry report, dated 10‑6‑2002 is manifestly "table enquiry" having no value or worth because official did not even consult the office record leave alone visiting the place of business. The complainant had not yet returned from aboard and there were no business activity by him. The combined assessment for the three years is a typical example of high‑handed and arbitrary dispensation where net profit for each year has been determined as Income divorced from realities and facts obtaining on the ground. This conduct clearly falls in the realm of "maladministration" as defined in clause (3) of section 2 of the FTO Ordinance. It is, therefore, recommended that:‑‑ (i) Commissioner by resort of section 122A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 cancel the consolidated assessment framed on 10‑6‑2002 for the assessment years 1999‑2000, 2000‑2001 and 2001‑2002. (ii) The Assessing Officer (Mr. Tariq Saleem) and the Inspector who conducted the enquiry on 10‑6‑2002 be warned and their performance be kept under observation for a period of one year. (iii) Six monthly report of observation be sent to this Secretariat. (iv) Compliance be reported within 30 days of the receipt of this order. C.M.A./120/FTO Order accordingly.