2025 PLP 272 (PTD)
NAVEED ANJUM Versus The SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD
| Citation | 2025 PLP 272 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Federal Tax Ombudsman |
| Bench Members | Dr. Asif Mahmood Jah, Federal Tax Ombudsman |
| Parties | NAVEED ANJUM Versus The SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD |
| Primary Law | Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2025 PLP 272 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2025 PLP 272 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Federal Tax Ombudsman bench comprising: Dr. Asif Mahmood Jah, Federal Tax Ombudsman.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2025 PLP 272 (PTD) (NAVEED ANJUM Versus The SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 9(1) & 10(4)
Federal Ombudsman Institutional Reforms Act (XIV of 2013), S. 9(1)
Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001), Ss.170(4) & 236-K
Way of disposing of refund claim by the Federal Board of Revenue
Scope
Refund application of the complainant / Government servant for Tax Year 2018 was rejected on the basis that evidence of tax deduction was not attached with the application, complainant was informed by the Chief Commissioner that his application for refund had already been rejected almost two years ago ;and that since there was no refund application pending, his case could not proceed
Order having been passed under S.170(4) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 was a classical example of departmental inattention and incompetence as on one hand, (one page )order stated that, "necessary evidence of tax payments is placed on record."
However, in the concluding para of same order the officer opined "that the taxpayer neither furnished any evidence regarding tax deduction manually not attached any evidence in support of refund claimed....... In view of above facts of the case, the refund application is rejected"
Thus, the contradiction and carelessness were more than evident
Said order, under S. 170(4) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 was silent about any opportunity of being heard given to the taxpayer prior to passing rejection order; which act itself contravened the said section which obligated the Department to afford proper opportunity of being heard
In the present case, tax deduction mainly related to S. 236-K of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2002, which was CNIC based and internally verifiable from FBR's portal
Thus, the present case reflected serious incidence of maladministration in terms of S. 2(3)(1)(b)(c) and (ii) of FTO Ordinance, 2000
Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended that FBR be directed to ensure that the concerned Commissioner was to revisit the impugned order and the claim of refund be disposed of as per law after affording proper opportunity of being heard to the complainant
Complaint filed by the taxpayer was disposed of accordingly. Muhammad Majid Qureshi, Advisor Dealing Officer. Muhammad Tanvir Akhtar, Advisor Appraisal Officer. Complainant in person Authorized Representative.
Judgment & Decree
FINDINGS:
3. In the instant case order under section 170(4) is a classical example of departmental inattention and incompetence as; i. one page order dated 19th August, 2020 for TY 2018 categorically states at Para 3 of the order that; "Necessary evidence of tax payments is placed on record." However, in the concluding Para of same order the officer opines, "that the taxpayer neither furnished any evidence regarding tax deduction manually not attached any evidence in support of refund claimed In view of above facts of the case, the refund application is rejected" Contradiction and carelessness are more than evident. i. Order under section 170(4) is silent about any opportunity of being heard given to the taxpayer prior to passing rejection order. This act itself contravenes the said section which obligates the department to afford proper opportunity of being heard. ii. In the instant case tax deduction mainly relates to section 236K which is CNIC based and internally verifiable from FBR's portal. In view of above the instant case reflects serious incidence of maladministration in terms of section 2(3)(i) (b)(c) and (ii) of FTO Ordinance, 2000. RECOMMENDATIONS: -
4. In view of the foregoing FBR is directed to ensure that; (i) commissioner concerned revisits the impugned order for TY 2018. (ii) claim of refund is disposed of as per law and after affording proper opportunity of being heard; and (iii) report compliance within 45 days. MQ/25/FTO Order accordingly.