2008 PLP 805 (PTD)
Messrs RAFIQUE CENTRE, GOJRA Versus SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD
| Citation | 2008 PLP 805 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Federal Tax Ombudsman |
| Bench Members | Justice (Retd.) Saleem Akhtar, Federal Tax Ombudsman |
| Parties | Messrs RAFIQUE CENTRE, GOJRA Versus SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD |
| Primary Law | Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 PLP 805 (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 2008 PLP 805 (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: 2008 PLP 805 (PTD) (Messrs RAFIQUE CENTRE, GOJRA Versus SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Nawaz Ahmad, I.A.C. for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 59, 62 & 63
Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), Ss.9 & 11
Selection of case for total audit
Refusal of Taxation Officer to accept revised return filed by assessee in terms of agreement made by Regional Commissioner of Income Tax and Tax Bar Association
Such agreement had no legal force as assessment was a matter between taxpayer and Taxation Officer
Taxpayers had not authorized representative of Tax Bar Association to enter into such agreement
Regional Commissioner of Income tax was not Assessing Authority, thus, had no legal authority to enter into such agreement
Assessment was to be completed according to provisions of Ss.59, 62 or 63 of Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 and not on basis of a blanket agreement covering all taxpayers
C.B.R. had cancelled such agreement
Assessee had failed to prove any maladministration on the part of Taxation Officer
Federal Tax Ombudsman closed proceedings in such case. Muhammad Anwar, Consultant (Dealing Officer). Muhammad Anwar Bhatti for the Complainant.
Judgment & Decree
"(1) In all the cases of traders excluding Yarn dealers assessment will be finalized at income by enhancing tax according to following scales where income tax department does not have definite evidence of concealment i.e. un-explained investment, concealment of income and non-disclosure of expenditure. Declared Income Tax Increase (i) up to Rs.200,000 35% of tax on declared income (ii) Rs.200,000 to RS.400,000 30% of tax on declared income (iii) More than Rs.400,000 25% of tax on declared income (2) This agreement shall not apply where evidence of acquisition of undisclosed assets, investment and expenditure is available with the department or comes into possession of the department during the course of assessment proceedings. (3) This agreement shall be valid for and upto the assessment year 2002-2003. (4) This agreement shall in no way absolve the assessee from filing of documents necessary for completion of assessment." The agreement was circulated by the R.C.I.T. vide his letter dated 1-2-2003 to all Commissioner of the Central Region, Multan in the following manner:
"Please find enclosed herewith copy of agreement with Income Tax Bar Association, Faisalabad for disposal of pending Total Auditor cases (B.F & Current) for information and necessary action."
4. Mr. Muhammad Arif Khan (D-C.I.T.) appearing for the Revenue on his turn submitted that the arrangement made by the R-C.I.T. with the Tax Bar had no legal sanction because after the selection of the case for Total Audit, the framing of assessment was the responsibility of the assessing officer. Main question for consideration is whether the agreement between the Tax Bar Multan and the R-C.I.T. is valid and according to law. Close examination of this agreement indicates that it does not have any legal force because assessment is a matter between taxpayer and Taxation Officer. The taxpayers of Multan had not authorized the representative of Tax Dar Association Multan to enter into any such agreement. Similarly the R-C.I.T. is not an assessing authority. He had also legal authority to enter into such an agreement. The Income Tax assessment is to be completed according to provisions of Income Tax Ordinance 1979 especially section 59, 62 or 63 of the repealed Income Tax Ordinance and not on the basis of a blanket agreement covering all the taxpayers. Thus the document dated 19-3-2003 is neither an agreement nor a contract because the parties involved in the Income Tax assessment have neither signed this agreement nor they had authorized any person to enter into any agreement on their behalf. Secondly this agreement was cancelled by the C.B.R. vide their letter No.2 (25)A/02 dated 11-3-2003 conveyed to the Commissioner of Income Tax by the R-C.I.T. Central Region Multan vide his letter dated 31-3-2003.
5. Because of the above reasons the complainant has failed to prove any `maladministration' on the part of Taxation Officer Circle-04 Multan hence further proceedings in this case are closed. S.A.K./191/F.T.O. Order accordingly.