2026 PLP 146 (PTD)

That the respondent knew two persons Mr. Zaid Ali and Mr. Baber Umer of the complainant institute which often appear for the purpose of producing record and submit legal compliance to the official notices. The names of these persons have not been mentioned in the complaint. That proceedings initiated against the respondent were in a lawful manner under the relevant provisions of the ITO, 2001. That the respondent had obeyed all the orders of the supervising officer. The supervising officer has independent mind to initiate any legal proceeding against any taxpayer. All the legal notices issued to the complainant were prepared by the respondent after getting approval from the signatory authority and then the signatory authority after satisfying himself issues legal notices. It is pertinent to mention here that no one can misguide any supervisor officer. Furthermore, complainant failed to produce PTCL phone recording as evidence in support to their bribe demanding allegations. That the respondent is willing to produce his cell phone where all the conversation with the above said two University employees is available on WhatsApp for the purpose of forensic analysis. That the respondent supervising officer passed order under section 161(1) of the Ordinance in tax year 2022 as on 27.08.2025 against which the complainant has remedy available in law of filing appeal. However, the complaint despite of availing remedy available in law filed the instant complaint before the august forum on the very next day as on 28.08.2025. That the complainant has earlier filed Complaint No. 0365/ABD/IT/2025 before the Honorable forum where the name of respondent has been specifically mentioned on the same accusation which has been listened. GROUNDS: Ground A is Illegal, based on mala fide intent and just to blame illegally the replying respondent, hence the ground is denied. Ground B is baseless and just a concocted story. The complainant has neither given date, time, place, month or year of demand of Illegal gratification to the respondents. The complainant has not mentioned the name of university employee from whom illegal gratification is demanded. Lahore High Court in the case of Ghulam Rasool v. The State (2008 MLD 742) held that in bribery and corruption cases transactions not only payment of bribe money to the accused by the complainant is to be seen but also the conversation between the two parties is to be heard by the Independent party such would be necessary to eliminate the chances of involvement of innocent people. Ground C, D, E and F are incorrect. It is stated that the replying respondent is bound to deal with each taxpayer in accordance with law and rules, the respondent made recovery of Govt. dues for the amount of Rs.34,646,457/- under section 140 of the Ordinance after fulfilling all the rules. After the recovery of afore said dues of Govt. complainant is maligning and accusing the respondent before the august forum repeatedly. The complainant with the intent of taking revenge and getting rid of respondent from all the legal proceeding under going against the complainant filed this complaint of false accusation."

4. Hearing in this case was fixed for 08.10.2025 vide notice under section 9(2) of the FOIR Act, 2013. The complainant A.R, Mr. Amjad Qudoos (ITP) attended the hearing. The departmental representative Mr. Shaukat Nawaz IRO, Haripur attended hearing online via mobile phone and vehemently denied all the allegations of corruption and harassment levelled against the official. The A.R did not press the charges. FINDINGS:

5. No act of maladministration on part of responding Department is established in the instant case as the complainant has decided not to press the charge. However, record of this office is witness to the fact that AR Mr. Amjad Qudoos has been habitually doing it: first levelling serious allegations of corruption against FBR s functionaries and when he is confronted, steps back simply by not pressing his tirade of baseless allegations. Earlier this year, in the case of M/S Women Medical College Abbotabad, the same AR had tried to malign Commissioner (Appeals-V) Islamabad. When confronted the Complainant entity completely disowned the said Complaint. In view of this serious misconduct the AR was warned by this office vide Order dated 26th March, 2025, in Comp Nos. 1640, 1726 and 1731/ABD/IT/2025 vide Para 2 of the said order reads: "This is very serious lapse on the part of AR Mr. Amjad Qudoos, who by levelling very serious charges, without consent of the Complainant, has chosen this august relief forum for maligning the office of Commissioner (Appeals)." And then in Para 3 of the order it was concluded, "In view of aforesaid the AR is being warned to be careful in future and in case of any recurrence this forum may invoke section 14(4) of FTO Ordinance, 2000, which reads: (4) Where the Federal Tax Ombudsman finds the complaint referred to in subsection (1) of section 9 to be false, frivolous or vexatious, he may award reasonable compensation to the Revenue Division or Tax Employee against whom the complaint was made. The amount of such compensation shall be recoverable from a complainant as an arrear of land revenue:" Unfortunately, despite the above warning Mr. Amjad Qudoos has once again tried to malign the department without any evidence. RECOMMENDATIONS:

6. Proceeding's under section 14(4) of FTO Ordinance, 2000 are ordered to be conducted forthwith. Regional Office Abbottabad to initiate the process, giving proper opportunity of being heard to Mr. Amjad Qudoos, the AR and furnish the findings within 45 days. MQ/57/FTO Order accordingly.