2004 PLP 1779 (PTD)
ABRAR‑UD‑DIN NASEER Versus SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD
| Citation | 2004 PLP 1779 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Federal Tax Ombudsman |
| Bench Members | Justice (Retd.) Saleem Akhtar, Federal Tax Ombudsman |
| Parties | ABRAR‑UD‑DIN NASEER Versus SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD |
| Primary Law | Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 PLP 1779 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2004 PLP 1779 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Federal Tax Ombudsman bench comprising: Justice (Retd.) Saleem Akhtar, Federal Tax Ombudsman.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 PLP 1779 (PTD) (ABRAR‑UD‑DIN NASEER Versus SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Anwar Jillani, D‑CIT for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 59(1)‑‑‑Self‑ Assessment‑‑‑Selection of case for Total Audit through computer random ballot with wrong secret No., where (i) a different name was mentioned than the assessee (ii) business name was left blank (iii) NIC was different from that of complainant ‑‑‑Assessee contended that it was not fair to thrust someone else's case on the Complainant/ assessee in the circumstances‑‑‑Department pleaded that PRAL was responsible for selection of cases for total audit by random balloting which had confirmed that it was the same assessee whose case had been selected for total audit‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑There were discrepancies regarding the Complainant/assessee's return picked up for Total Audit by computer ‑‑‑NIC number and name were different and the NTN, as also the business name, were missing and these discrepancies discredited authenticity of selection‑‑‑In case of doubt the benefit should go to the subject‑‑‑Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended that Complainant's return filed for the assessment year 2002‑2003 be accepted under Self Assessment Scheme. Armughan Ali for the Complainant.
Judgment & Decree
2. The facts leading to the complaint are that the Complainant individual runs a Press for printing cards, office stationery etc. No books of account are maintained. Return for the assessment year 2002‑2003 was filed declaring Income at Rs.104,421 alongwith statement under section 143B of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 (hereinafter called the repealed Ordinance) in respect of printing supplies to offices etc. On the face of the Return, the complainant had mentioned his NTN and NIC which was the same as in the past year. Result of random ballot do not contain either his name or NTN. However, the Department informed him that his case has been selected for Total Audit and started proceedings. This is the cause of grievance.
3. The respondent in parawise comments by RCIT Eastern Region, Lahore deny "maladministration" and explain that though a wrong secret No. YA12373 was mentioned through a clerical mistake as against assessee's correct No. Y.A. 12135 which mistake was brought to the notice of the assessee. The PRAL has confirmed that it is complainant's Return which has been picked up for Total Audit. It has further been pleaded that selection of cases for total audit of A.Y. 2002‑2003 was not based on NTN, the balloting was made on parametric selection of cases based on return itself. PRAL is responsible for selection of cases for total audit by random balloting which has confirmed that it is the same assessee whose case has been selected for total audit.
4. The learned counsel for the complainant's submitted particulars of his client as under:‑‑ (i) Name: Mr. Abrar‑ud‑Din Naseer (ii) NTN: 0956784‑4 (iii) NIC: 270‑64‑115039 He then referred to the list of cases selected for Total Audit through computer random ballot, where (i) a different name is mentioned as Abrar‑ud‑Din Nisar, (ii) the business name is left blank, (iii) NIC is A different from that of the Complainant, and (iv) no NTN has been given. It was submitted that in the face of such discrepancies it is not fair to thrust someone else case on the complainant.
5. Mr. Anwar‑ul‑Haq Jillani (DCIT) appearing for Revenue stuck to the stand by the RCIT in the parawise comments.
6. Scrutiny of record shows that there were discrepancies regarding the complainant's Return picked up for Total Audit by the computer. The NIC number and name are different and the NTN, as also the business name, are missing. These discrepancies discredit the authenticity of selection. Therefore, following the principle that in case of doubt the benefit should go to the subject, it is Recommended that:‑‑ (i) Complainant's Return filed for the assessment year 2002‑2003 be accepted under SAS. (ii} Compliance be reported within 30 days of the receipt of this Order by C.B.R. C.M.A./966/FTO Order accordingly.