2003 PLP 679 (PTD)
Yasin Versus SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD
| Citation | 2003 PLP 679 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Federal Tax Ombudsman |
| Bench Members | Justice (Retd.) Saleem Akhtar, Federal Tax Ombudsman |
| Parties | Yasin Versus SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD |
| Primary Law | Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 PLP 679 (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 2003 PLP 679 (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: 2003 PLP 679 (PTD) (Yasin Versus SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Habib Ahmad, D‑C.I.T. for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 50(5)‑‑‑Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), S.9‑‑‑Deduction of tax at source‑‑ Exemption certificate, non‑issuance of ‑‑‑Maladministration‑‑ Complainant/assessee fulfilled all the requirements of law and qualified for issuance of exemption certificate under S.50(5) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, as their deposits exceeded the requisite amount and they had prayed that the surplus be either refunded or adjusted against demand‑‑ Validity‑‑‑Representative of Revenue could not rebut the factual position and had no basis to disagree with such calculation ‑‑‑Complainant/assessee was illegally deprived of his right to get an exemption certificate under S.50(5) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 and such a denial was not the first occasion of such nature in the complainant/assessee's case thus making "Maladministration" more glaring‑‑‑Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended Central Board of Revenue to direct (i) the Regional Commissioner of Income Tax to issue exemption certificate within two weeks; (ii) the Regional Commissioner of Income‑tax to issue instructions emphasizing that where requirements of law stood fulfilled, as in the present complainant/ assessee's case, requisite exemption certificates should invariably be issued promptly. M.A. Hadi, Chartered Accountant for the Complainant.
Judgment & Decree
Total payment Rs.6,808,738 Recalling constant discriminatory treatment the learned A.R., Mr. M.A. Hadi (F.C.A.) submitted that unwarranted additions were made in 1998‑99 under section 12(18) and section 13(1) which the CIT (Appeals) deleted and the Appellate Tribunal concurred. Similarly in 1999‑2000 section 66A was resorted to make addition under section 12(18) which could not stand the test of appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. In 2000‑2001 an Auditor was appointed under section 4A but his report is not being acted upon.
3. The respondent reports in the rejoinder that up to the time of the receipt of the application for issuance of exemption certificate i.e. from July, 2001 to December, 2001, total tax deductions stood at Rs.5,352,650 which fell short by Rs.1,456,088 when compared with the benchmark amount of Rs.6,808,
738. Therefore, the complainant was requested to first meet the requirements of law by meeting the base figure to quality for issuance of exemption certificate. As soon as compliance was made, the exemption certificate under section 50(5) was issued.
4. The complainant's‑A.R submitted a rejoinder on 9‑4‑2002 by way of rebuttal of respondent's plea that the requirements of law had not been fulfilled to earn entitlement for issuance of the exemption certificate. It is asserted that factual position was as under:‑‑ Refund for assessment year 1999‑2000 Rs. 6,958,457 Adjust Deposit in 2000‑2001 (‑) Rs. 6,330,167 Rs. 628,290 Payments on retirement of six LCs on 12-11‑2001 and 28‑11‑2001 Rs. 716,028 Payment on retirement of LC on 12‑12‑2000 Rs. 450,933 Rs. 1,795,251 Dedut Tax Payment Rs. 1,066,980 Excess payment upto 31‑12‑2001 Rs. 728,271 The above chart clearly suggests that the complainant‑Company fulfilled all the requirements of law and qualified for issuance of exemption certificate under section 50(5) of Income Tax Ordinance, as their deposits exceeded by Rs.728,271 over the requisite amount of Rs.6,330,167, as explained above. It was prayed that the surplus be either refunded or adjusted against demand for assessment year 2002‑2003. The representative of Revenue could not rebut this factual position and had no basis to disagree with the above calculation. Obviously, the complainant was, illegally deprived of his right to get an exemption certificate section 50(5), and such a denial is not the first occasion of such nature in the complainant's case thus making maladministration more glaring. It is, therefore, recommended that the C.B.R. to direct: (i) The RCIT to issue exemption certificate within two weeks. (ii) The R‑CIT to issue instructions to emphasizing that where requirements of law stand fulfilled, as in the present complainant's case, requisite exemption certificates should invariably be issued promptly. (iii) Compliance report be submitted within 30 days of the receipt of this order. C.M.A./534/FTO Order accordingly.