2002 PLP 1875 (PTD)

The precise allegation in the instant complaint is that the ALIT, Circle 17, Chiniot has indulged in maladministration by imposing a penalty of Rs.26,000 under section 108 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 on 31‑1‑1999 by overlooking the fact that the complainant had already filed the statement under section 139 of the Income Tax Ordinance on 21‑11‑1998 in response to his first notice under section 116, dated 12‑11‑1998.

2. Mr. Khalid Mahmood, the Authorized Representative of the complainant and Mr. Ahmad Hussain Khan, the D.C.I.T., Circle 7, Chiniot representing. the respondent have been heard. The complaint as well as the written reply of the respondent have been perused. It transpires that the complainant, Manager of Chiniot Branch of Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan did not file the statement under section 139 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 for the year ending on 30‑6‑1998 by the due date i.e. 1st September, 1998. He received a notice under section 116 of the Ordinance, dated 12‑11‑1998 from the ACIT and complied with it under a covering letter, datea 21‑11‑1998 acknowledged by Inspector of Income‑talc, Mr. Iftikhar Ahmed Lali by subscribing his signature on the copy of letter, on the same date.

3. However, the complainant received another notice under section 108, dated 22=1‑1999 and he again submitted a copy of the statement under section 139 that has been duly acknowledged by he same Inspector on the duplicate copy . Yet the penalty order holding the complainant in default till the date of order was passed by Mr. Zulfiqar Ali Zaheer, DCIT on 31‑1‑1999 and served upon the complainant. The complainant again approached the ACIT and filed another copy of the statement on 10‑2‑1999. ,

4. Mr. Ahmad Hussain Khan, the DCIT representing the respondent at the time of hearing concedes that the acknowledgments produced by the complainant are signed by the then Inspector posted in the Circle but neither any of the statement/ letter is found in the inward Dak Register of the Circle nor it is found on record. The A. R. of the complainant on the other hand contends that once an official working in the Circle acknowledges the receipt of the document, the, assessee has duly discharged his liability and he cannot be made to suffer for the malfunctioning of the Circle Office.

5. From the aforestated facts, it is clear that the complainant discharged his liability on 21‑11‑1998 and remained a defaulter from September 2 to November 20, 1998 i.e. for a period of, 80 days without any .reasonable cause. The correct facts came to light during these proceedings the fact that letters and statement submitted in reply to the notices delivered to the Inspector are not available on record, establishes negligence, lack of supervision and failure to maintain administrative ID discipline and control. This clearly amounts to maladminstration.

6. It is now recommended; (i) That the D.C.I.T. concerned should rectify the order under section 156 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 reducing the period as well as the penalty fot the default accordingly. (ii) Enquiry be instituted regarding non‑maintainability of the complainant's letters . dated 21‑1‑1998 and 16‑2‑1999 and identity persons responsible for such negligent act (iii) Compliance be reported within 45 days of the date of this order. S.A.K./252/FTO Order accordingly.