Sec 132(3) of IT Ord: Willful delay in tax-related cases to cost CTO dearly

ISLAMABAD: The federal government may pay a cost of Rs.400,000 for delaying the tax-related cases pending before Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue (ATIR) in terms of newly-inducted section 132(3) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.

In this regard, a show cause notice has been issued by ATIR to the Corporate Tax Office, Islamabad.

It is reliably learned that ATIR has issued a notice to the CTO to impose a penalty of Rs.50,000 per appeal for delaying the matter in terms of section 132(3).

Tax lawyer Waheed Shahzad Butt who is representing the case before ATIR, told BR that earlier, Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif suspended a senior taxman for seeking an adjournment in a tax case, which showed his commitment to resolve the disputed tax matters but caused resentment in the tax machinery. The Prime Minister had taken notice of the willful delay in tax cases and ordered for suspension of the CCIR, Islamabad, and other relevant officials. The PM also asked for initiating an inquiry.

Transfer of appeals to ATIR: December 31, 2024 is the deadline

The ATIR order stated “It is noted that during the previous hearing, the learned DR was directed to inform the concerned CIR and the author of the impugned orders to appear before the court in person with the complete record. Today, the Add-CIR appeared before the court but without the case record. This conduct from the department is unacceptable, and as a result, a show-cause notice is issued to the CIR, asking why a penalty of Rs.50,000/- per appeal should not be imposed for delaying the matter in terms of section 132(3),” it said.

The ATIR order further stated that, “the departmental representative and Additional Commissioner Inland Revenue, present on behalf of the Department. The Additional Commissioner Inland Revenue initially stated at Bar that both officers, the CIR and ACIT, were occupied with matters before the High Court and thus he was appearing on their behalf. When asked to specify the case and court in which they were busy he sought time to consult the CIR. However, he later changed his stance, stating instead that both officers were on three day’s leave. Due to this inconsistency, he was directed to submit a written statement. However, he left the Tribunal without submitting any statement and later sent a letter dated 03.07.2024 to Bench clerk through WhatsApp. It was stated, among other things, that the CIR Zone-1 is currently on leave.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2024