Malfeasance of taxmen in refund process: Alvi directs FBR to implement FTO’s recommendations

ISLAMABAD: President Arif Alvi, while upholding the decisions of the Federal Tax Ombudsman (FTO) regarding maladministration of the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) officials in processing refund cases has directed the FBR to implement the FTO’s recommendations. The departmental plea regarding bar on jurisdiction of the FTO in such cases has also been set aside by the president.

He has directed the commissioner–IR, Commission West Zone Islamabad and commissioner I-R Enforcement 11- CTO, Karachi their orders by exercising powers conferred under section (U/S) 122 A, as per law and report compliance within 30 days.

In all three cases the background of the case was similar as under: In the first case: pertaining to Sahiwal against order framed under section 170(4) of the income Tax Ordinance, 2001 (the ordinance) for tax year 2018 by commissioner IR Sahiwal Nazir Ahmad Proprietor of M/s Bilal Commission Shop. He filed a complaint before the FTO against failure to dispose of refund application for tax year 2018 which was disposed of vide findings with the recommendations that FBR may direct the commissioner –IR, Sahiwal Zone to complete the verification and settle complainants refunds for tax years 2018, after providing him opportunity of hearing as per law.

In the second case, an individual filed return of income for tax year 2020 under section 114(1) of the ordinance claiming refund amounting to Rs0.188 million and e-filed refund application for tax year 2020.

He contended that the department issued notice under section 170(4) of the ordinance for functioning supporting evidence. Although a very short time was allowed but he made compliance whereas, the unit officer without considering reply of the complainant passed the impugned order, in terms of section 170(4) of the ordinance whereby by the refund application was rejected. He therefore took up the matter with the FTO by filing complaint under section.

The FTO thrashed the matter, directed the FBR that “It is an admitted position that the complaint e-filed refund application for tax year 2020 .evidently, the unit officer issued notice ,under section 170(4) of the ordinance requiring the complainant to submit supporting evidence .although the notice issued was in contravention of the FBR’S circular ,observed from perusal of the impugned order reflects that what to talk of providing statutory opportunity of impugned order passed under section 170 (4) of the ordinance.

In case no 3,Yousuf Irshad Hussain,(the complainant) a property concern, filed returns of income for tax years 2016 to 2019 under section 114 (1) of the income tax ordinance,2001 the ordinance claiming refund amounting to Rs0.051 million,Rs0.048 million,Rs0.063 million, and Rs0.063 million, and Rs0.072 million. He e-filed refund applications for tax years, 2016 and 2019 along with evidence of tax deduction. However, despite his persistent efforts the zonal CIR failed to serve on the complainant orders in writing of the decisions in terms of section 170(4) of the ordinance within the stipulated time. He therefore took up the matter with the FTO by filing complaint under section 10(1) of the FTO ordinance, the president’s order added.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2022