2003 PLP 530 (PTD)

41,000 1996‑97 48,300 42,000 1997‑98 27,600 120,000 The Assessing Officer's action was oppressive, against accepted practice, unlawful and was in violation of the instructions of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The assessment record produced by the Special Officer was examined with a view to investigate 'the value and worth of the allegations in the complaint and the reply submitted by the defendant/respondent. It was canvassed for the Complainant/Assessee that the CIT(A) had issued clear directions to frame revised assessment "as per history of' the case" a verdict which was concurred by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Zone‑A, Lahore who specifically directed the Special Officer, vide letter, dated 24‑3‑2001, to follow the instructions of the CIT (Appeals) while framing the revised assessment. Despite these unequivocal observations, the Special Officer repeated the originally assessed income of Rs. 120,000 and added insult to the injury by omitting to specify any basis or process through which the income was expected to be computed. As respect the history of the case, the learned counsel explained, it is discernible that against gross receipts declared at Rs. 27,600 in the assessment year 1994‑95 income was assessed at Rs. 31,000 but in the assessment year 1997‑98 (i.e. the year in dispute) despite declared gross receipts being exactly the same at Rs. 27,600, income was arbitrarily assessed under section 63 at a net amount of Rs.120,000 for which no basis whatsoever was mentioned. The same figure was repeated with impunity in the revised assessment framed under sections 62/132 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. The Special Officer could not controvert any of the above mentioned insinuations. There is, therefore, no escape from the conclusion that the impugned dispensation was arbitrary, unjust, oppressive, unlawful in addition to total disregard to the limited scope of authority given by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) and defiance of the instructions by his own Zonal Commissioner of Income‑tax, Zone‑A, Lahore. This transgression of the jurisdiction clearly amounts to "maladministration" as defined in the Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000 in sub section (3) of section

2. The assessment record, as presented for perusal was in a schockingly deplorable state: It is surprising that none of the‑Officers who happened to deal with the case, right from very beginning, ever cared (hopefully through omission only) to keep the record in the manner and method prescribed by the Office Procedure in the Income Tax Department. The unflattering aspects which the record reveals are: ‑‑ Returns for the assessment years 1994‑95 to 1996‑97 declared `nil' income. The copies of the IT‑30s, obtaining on the file, mention that assessments were framed under section 62 but surprisingly all assessment orders are missing from the record, ‑‑ All the three assessments were framed on the same date i.e. 18-12‑1996 as per entry to this effect recorded on the order sheet, ‑‑ Even the order sheet does not mention the assessed figure of income which is‑ obtaining only on IT‑30s indicating that income was assessed at net amounts of Rs.31,000, Rs.41,000 and Rs.42,000 respectively in 1994‑95, 1995‑96 and 1996‑97, ‑‑‑ for the assessment year 1997‑98, the disputed year, original assessment was framed under section 63 at a net income of Rs.120,000 but no copy of the assessment order finds place on record. It passes imagination how the assessee/complainant came to have a copy of the assessment order, a photocopy of which has been submitted alongwith the complaint, ‑‑ For assessment year 1998‑99 (subsequent to the year under complaint), the declared income was `nil' yet the assessment was framed under section 62 at a net amount of Rs.120,000 of which no basis or computation is given. [It does not emerge from record whether any appeal was filed against this order], ‑‑ For assessment years 1999‑2000 and 2000‑2001 no, returns of income are available but no proceedings under section 56 etc. appear to have been initiated, ‑‑ A return of income for the assessment year 1999‑2000 filed by Mr. Javed Akhtar Gohar, (member of the A.O.P.) together with a salary certificate from the employer is placed on record of the AOP although this gentleman is an existing assessee at NTN 06‑24‑0193994 of an altogether different Zone. [The return should have been immediately transferred to the concerned Circle and its existence on A.O.P's. record demonstrates indifference, incompetence and carelessness]. In short, the assessment record is outrageously ill‑arranged, a situation which appears still more grave when viewed in the context that none of the concerned officers/officials bothered to bring it into a presentable shape even when summoned by the Federal Tax Ombudsman Secretariat. At least some efforts should have been made to arrange the record before its submission to a higher investigating forum. It should not be difficult to diagnose the cause of this malady and the persistent indifference on the part of the functionaries manning the income‑tax circles. To be precise, it is the lack of supervision by the I.A.C. whose job description requires him to monitor the working of the officers in his Range. Unless the higher echelon of the Revenue Division realize the importance of effective supervision and strict monitoring of field officers, it may not be possible to pass on the benefits of any proclaimed reforms or restructuring to the taxpayers and he public at large. Coming to the present complaint it is recommended (1) The C.I.T., Zone‑A, Lahore may call for record of the case for suo motu action under section 138(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance. (2) Stringent warning and the appropriate guidelines be issued to the Special Officer for the present dereliction of duty and for corrective action in future, (3) A task force be nominated to go through the entire record of the Circle to ensure that not only file but registers also are brought in conformity with the requirement of Office Procedure for maintenance of record in the Offices. (4) A compliance receipt be sent to the F.T.O. Secretariat within 30 days of the receipt of this order. C.M.A./569/FTO Order accordingly.