2003 PLP 2496 (PTD)
MUHAMMAD ARSHAD Versus SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE, ISLAMABAD
| Citation | 2003 PLP 2496 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Federal Tax Ombudsman |
| Bench Members | Justice (Recd.) Saleem Akhtar, Federal Tax Ombudsman |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ARSHAD Versus SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE, ISLAMABAD |
| Primary Law | Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 PLP 2496 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2003 PLP 2496 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Federal Tax Ombudsman bench comprising: Justice (Recd.) Saleem Akhtar, Federal Tax Ombudsman.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2003 PLP 2496 (PTD) (MUHAMMAD ARSHAD Versus SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE, ISLAMABAD). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Ss.16(5), 10(1)(c) & 35‑‑‑Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), S.2(3)‑‑‑Assessment‑‑ Refund‑‑‑While finalising assessment full credit for the amount of tax deposited under S. 14‑A of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963 was not given with ulterior motive just to avoid/delay early refund‑‑‑Refund was created on rectification application‑‑‑Transfer of jurisdiction‑‑‑Unnecessarily prolonged proceedings for non‑issuance of refund ‑‑‑Validity‑‑ Department informed that the refund had been issued to the complainant/assessee‑‑‑ Complainant/ assessee had, however, withdrawn the claim of additional tax‑‑‑Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended that the assessment proceedings for the year 2000‑2001 be completed after providing reasonable opportunity to the complainant/assessee to present his case and Central Board of Revenue to issue a directive that (a) within 14 days of the order for change of jurisdiction the assessees, whose cases are transferred, be notified in writing through Registered AID; (b) a list of all those assessees/cases whose files are transferred should be pasted on the notice board of the original office and the ransferee office within one week of the transfer of cases/files. Complainant alongwith Mr. Dawood, Manager (present). Nazir Shooro, I.A.C. Range‑III, Zone B, Karachi, D.R. and Abdul Hameed Anjum, ACIT, Karachi.
Judgment & Decree
3. However, application to rectify the mistake under section 35 was filed on 29th May, 2000 requesting to allow full credit of the amount deposited under section 14‑A for the assessment year 1999‑2000. The wealth Tax Officer Circle‑21 rectified the assessment creating the refund of Rs. 103,315 under section 35 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963.
4. It was further alleged that for the issuance of refund, letters were written to the ACIT Circle B‑21, CIT Zone‑B and RCIT Southern Region but no reply was received. Meanwhile, the jurisdiction of this case was transferred to Circle B‑16, Zone‑B vide notification dated 11‑7‑2000 under section 10(1)(c) of the Wealth Tax Act and actual file was transferred on 22‑7‑2000. The complainant stated that no intimation, as regards the transfer of his case records to Circle‑B‑16, Zone‑B, was received either from Circle B‑21 or Circle B‑16 until 11‑5‑2001.
5. On the date of hearing department conceded that no intimation was sent to the complainant. The complainant therefore, filed wealth tax return for the year 2000‑2001 in Circle‑21 on 22‑11‑2000 and it is because of this, notice under section 16 (4) of the Wealth Tax Act 1963 was issued by the Wealth Tax Officer of Circle‑
21. However, no other proceedings were taken up by the Wealth Tax Officer Circle‑21.
6. The Wealth Tax Officer Circle‑21, was absolutely not justified in issuing notice under section 16(4) of the Wealth Tax Act when he was fully aware of the transfer of the jurisdiction through notification dated 11‑7‑2000. His action thus created doubts and apprehension in the mind of the complainant.
7. It is pertinent to point out that the return was filed on 22‑11‑2000 but the proceedings, have been unnecessarily prolonged for more than, two and half years. This creates harassment and the supervisory officers must take cognizance of such lapses and issue instructions and guidance to the Assessing Officers in this behalf. The allegation of maladimnistration thus stands established.
8. The ACIT holding jurisdiction of the case however, informed that the refund of Rs.1,03,315, for the assessment year 1999‑2000, has been issued to the complainant on 26‑4‑2003 vide refund Voucher No.025590 and proceedings for assessment year 2000‑2001 are in progress. The complainant has however, withdrawn the claim of additional tax.
9. It is recommended that:‑‑ (i) The assessment proceedings for the year 2000‑2001 be completed after providing reasonable, opportunity to the complainant to present his case. (ii) C.B.R. issue a directive that (a) within 14 days of the order for change of jurisdiction the assessees whose cases are transferred be notified in writing through Registered A/D. (b) A list of all those assessees/cases whose files are transferred should be pasted on the notice board of the original office and the transferee office within one week of the transfer of cases/files. (iii) The compliance report be made within 30 days from the receipt of this order. C.M.A./833/FTO Order accordingly.