2020 PLP 602 (PTD)

Riaz Ahmad Raja, ITP Authorized Representative. Muhammad Amjad, IRAO, RTO, Multan Departmental Representatives. FINDINGS/RECOMMENDATIONS MUSHTAQ AHMAD SUKHERA, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN.

Both the above mentioned identical complaints were filed under Section 10(1) of the Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000 (FTO Ordinance) against inordinate delay in issuance of refund for Tax Years 2017 and 2018. The Complainant also prayed for additional payment for delayed refund. Both the complaints having identical issues, are disposed of through a single consolidated order

2. Precisely, the Complainant, an individual, deriving income from Paper Cone and Packages and supplies, e-filed Statements of final Taxation for Tax Years 2017 and 2018, under section 115(4) of the income Tax Ordinance, 2001 (the Ordinance) claiming refund amounting to, Rs.0.139 and Rs.0.038 million, respectively. The refund arose on account of excessive deduction of tax under sections 153(1)(a), 231A and 236P of the Ordinance. According to the AR, the Complainant e-filed refund applications on 09.03.2018 and 01.12.2018. However, despite repeated efforts of the Complainant, the Deptt failed to pass orders under Section 170(4) of the Ordinance, within the stipulated time.

3. The complaints were referred for comments to the Secretary Revenue Division, in terms of Section 10(4) of the FTO Ordinance read with section 9(1) of the Federal Ombudsmen Institutional Reforms Act, 2013. In response thereto, the Chief Commissioner-IR, RTO, Multan forwarded through letter dated 11.12.2019 parawise comments of the Commissioner-IR Multan Zone dated 10.12.2019. At the outset, Preliminary objection regarding bar of jurisdiction in terms of section 9(2)(b) of the FTO Ordinance was raised. Reliance was placed on judgment of Hon'ble Lahore High Court in W.P. No.5999 of 2017 (Shehzadi Polypropylene Industries v. Federation of Pakistan and others).

4. On merits, it was contended that refund for Tax Years 2017 and 2018 could not be processed as the Complainant though filed statement of final taxation under section 115(4) of the Ordinance, but failed to furnish copies of the CPRs and proof of tax deducted under Section 231A of the Ordinance. The Unit Officer had taken up the issue with the withholding agents and banking companies for obtaining copies of CPRs in respect of tax deducted under sections 153(1)(a), 231A and 236P of the Ordinance. It was further contended that refund applications for 2017 and 2018 were under process. However, the Complainant's request for additional payment for delayed refund, is pre-mature at this stage, in terms of section 171(2)(c) of the Ordinance.

5. During hearing, the AR contended that the documentary evidence has been furnished to the Deptt in support of refund for Tax Years 2017 and 2018. The DR assured to dispose of refund applications for Tax Years 2017 and 2018, within 30 days, as per law. 6 As the Deptt has given assurance to dispose of refund applications of the Complainant for Tax Years 2017 and 2018, within 30 days, as per law, there is no need to go into legal and factual merits of the complaints. The Deptt is, thus, directed to complete the verification and dispose of refund applications of the Complainant for Tax Years 2017 and 2018, as per assurance and law.

7. Report compliance within 45 days. KMZ/1/FTO Order accordingly.