2003 PLP 2361 (PTD)
Mst. SAIERA ANWAR, Versus SECRETARY, REVEVNUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD
| Citation | 2003 PLP 2361 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Federal Tax Ombudsman |
| Bench Members | , Justice (Retd.) Saleem Akhtar, Federal Tax Ombudsman |
| Parties | Mst. SAIERA ANWAR, Versus SECRETARY, REVEVNUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD |
| Primary Law | Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 PLP 2361 (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 2361 (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 2361 (PTD) (Mst. SAIERA ANWAR, Versus SECRETARY, REVEVNUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Chaudhry Mohammad Saleem DCIT for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 59(1)-Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), S.2(3)
C.B.R. Circular No.4 of 2001, dated 18-6-2001 para. 9(a)(ii)-[Self-Assessment Scheme]
Assessment year 2001-2002, setting apart of assessment
Estimation of receipts from 8 power looms for a period of 48 days at Rs.7,00,000 against declared receipt of Rs.3,45,500 and assessment of net income at Rs.1,10,000 against declared business income Rs.33,900
Arbitrariness of Assessing Officer was evident from his decision, which was biased and discriminatory as well
Maladministration thus was proved-- -Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended that Central Board of Revenue to direct exclusion of return from the list of cases selected under Para 9(a)(ii) for audit and for its acceptance under Self-Assessment Scheme. 2002 PTD 1828 ref. Zafar Iqbal for Complainant.
Judgment & Decree
2000-2001 20-20-0435490 16 1,12,000 2 2000-2001 20-20-TR 18050 32 1,40,000 3 2001-2002 20-20-Z295463 NTN changed 32 1,50,000 4 2000-2001 20-20TR 18055 20 1,10,000 5 2001-2002 20-20-Z295507 due to change of NTN 20 1,20,000 6 2000-2001 20-20-TR 18073 16 1,12,000
5. The counsel submitted that the foregoing facts were enough to support his allegations of arbitrariness, unreasonability, bias and discrimination. He placed reliance on the decision of Federal Tax Ombudsman in Complaint No. 1292 of 2001 reported in 2002 PTD 1828 in support of his contention.
6. Chaudhry Mohammad Saleem, DCIT representing the Respondent during the course of investigation could not show any plausible basis either placed on record or mentioned in the assessment order for enhancing the declared receipts. He only repeated the following counter productive argument submitted in the written reply of the RCIT: "The income of the assessee from own business was estimated keeping in view the facts of the case. It is admitted that the assessee did not conduct the business for whole of the year but he himself declared more receipts for a period of one month and 18 days as compared with the receipts for the preceding year. Thus the declared results for the last year did not constitute a reliable guide for estimating the sales for the period under consideration. "
7. The arbitrariness of the Assessing Officer is evident from his decision, which is biased and discriminatory as well. The mal administration as defined in sub-clause (b) of clause (i) of subsection (3) of section 2 of Ordinance XXXV of 2000 is proved.
8. It is recommended that:-- (i) C.B.R. to direct exclusion of return from the list of cases selected under Para 9(a)(ii) for audit and for its acceptance under Self-Assessment Scheme. (ii) Compliance to be reported within thirty days of this order. C.M.A./837/FTO Order accordingly.