2009 PLP 2187 (PTD)
Before Dr. Muhammad Shoaib Suddle, Federal Tax Ombudsman Commodore (Retd.) K.M. HUSSAIN Versus SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD
| Citation | 2009 PLP 2187 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Federal Tax Ombudsman |
| Bench Members | Dr. Muhammad Shoaib Suddle, Federal Tax Ombudsman Commodore (Retd.) K.M. HUSSAIN |
| Parties | Before Dr. Muhammad Shoaib Suddle, Federal Tax Ombudsman Commodore (Retd.) K.M. HUSSAIN Versus SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD |
| Primary Law | Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2009 PLP 2187 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2009 PLP 2187 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Federal Tax Ombudsman bench comprising: Dr. Muhammad Shoaib Suddle, Federal Tax Ombudsman Commodore (Retd.) K.M. HUSSAIN.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2009 PLP 2187 (PTD) (Before Dr. Muhammad Shoaib Suddle, Federal Tax Ombudsman Commodore (Retd.) K.M. HUSSAIN Versus SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sikandar Sheikh, D.C.I.T. for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss.9, 10, 11(1)(b)(2), 53(1)(c) & Second Sched.
Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), Ss.10 & 11
Complainant had alleged that his request to make corrections in the assessment of income of his wife from property had remained unattended
Complainant had stated that his wife had declared income from property and while making assessment she was not given basic exemption of Rs.150,000 and deduction of expenses incurred on payment of Cantonment Taxes and senior citizen related tax benefit as provided in clause (1-A) of Part-III of Second Schedule of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 and in circumstances tax on income from property had not been correctly charged
Section 53(1)(c) and clause (1-A) of Part-III of Second Schedule of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, had shown that the relief in tax liability was provided in respect of tax payable by any person under the Ordinance and it was not restricted to salary or certain specific head of income or type of tax
Provisions of Ss.9, 10, 11(1)(b) & (2) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 had made it quite clear that relief in tax allowed under Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, could not be denied to a taxpayer whose income fell in Presumptive Tax Regime
Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended that F.B.R. to look into the claim of the complainant in the light of Ss.9, 10, 11(1)(b) & 11(2) read with clause (1-A) of Part-III of the Schedule of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 and to decide same on merit within, specific period; to issue necessary clarification as per law to avoid that type of complaints/litigation; and also issue guidelines for senior citizens about that particular relief. Mumtaz Ahmed, Advisor (Dealing Officer). K.M. Hussain the Complainant in person.
Judgment & Decree
Sikandar Sheikh, D.C.I.T. for Respondent. FINDINGS/RECOMMENDATIONS DR. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SUDDLE, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN.
Mr. K.M. Hussain, Commodore (Retd.) filed a complaint on 25-8-2008 which was transferred from FTO Head Office Islamabad to Regional Office, Karachi stating that his request and reminder to make corrections in the assessment of income of his wife from property had remained unattended. He stated that his wife, Mst. Asmat-Un-Nisa Begum had derived income from property. While making assessment she was not given basic exemption of Rs.150,000 and deduction of expenses incurred on payment of Cantonment taxes and Senior Citizen related tax benefit as provided in clause (1-A) of Part-III of the Second Schedule, and as such tax on the :income from property had not been correctly charged. It is also pleaded that the tax at 5% was incorrectly charged in the tax year, 2007 on the gross amount of income from property.
2. Mr. K.M. Hussain attended in response to notice, while the Department was represented by Mr. Sikandar Sheikh, DCIT.
3. Mr. Sikandar Sheikh, DCIT/D.R. stated that basic exemption of Rs.150,000 was not available in the tax year, 2007 as the tax paid on gross rent was to be taken as final discharge of tax liability. The basic exemption, in such a situation of the PTR was, however, provided by the amendment brought about by the Finance Act, 2008. He further stated that for the individuals, whether the rent was assessable under section 15 or section 155, tax rate at 5% was applicable to the income from property for the tax year, 2007, falling in this bracket of income. He further stated that specific tax relief as provided under clause (IA) of Part-III of Second Schedule for the Senior Citizens should be available in cases where tax was to be taken final discharge of tax liability.
4. Findings: Reading of section 53(1)(c) and clause (IA) of Part-III of the Second Schedule shows that the relief benefit in tax liability is provided in respect of tax payable by any person under the Ordinance. It is not restricted to salary or certain specific head of income or type of tax: Bare reading of sections 9 and 10 relating to "taxable income" and "total income" as well as sections 11(1)(b) and 11(2) dealing with heads of income, makes it quite clear that relief in tax allowed under the Ordinance cannot be denied to a taxpayer whose income falls in Presumptive Tax Regime.
5. Recommendations: In view of the foregoing discussion, It is recommended that FBR to: (i) look into claim of the complainant in the light of sections 9, 10, 11(1)(b) and 11(2) read with clause (IA) of Part-III of the Schedule and decide it on merit within 30 days; (ii) issue necessary clarification as per law to avoid this type of complaints /litigation; (iii) also issue guidelines for Senior Citizens about this particular relief. H.B.T./150/F.T.O. Order accordingly.