BR100 Increased By (1.12%)
BR30 Increased By (1.8%)
KSE100 Increased By (0.98%)
KSE30 Increased By (1.06%)
AGHA 7.69 Increased By ▲ 0.23 (3.08%)
BECO 5.32 Increased By ▲ 0.05 (0.95%)
BML 61.50 Increased By ▲ 4.24 (7.4%)
BOP 36.10 Increased By ▲ 1.35 (3.88%)
CNERGY 11.33 Increased By ▲ 0.27 (2.44%)
CSIL 6.19 Increased By ▲ 0.36 (6.17%)
FCCL 56.88 Increased By ▲ 0.46 (0.82%)
FFL 16.53 Increased By ▲ 0.12 (0.73%)
FNEL 1.20 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
KEL 7.42 Increased By ▲ 0.10 (1.37%)
KOSM 6.09 Decreased By ▼ -0.06 (-0.98%)
LOTCHEM 27.27 Increased By ▲ 0.15 (0.55%)
MLCF 103.25 Increased By ▲ 5.31 (5.42%)
NBP 207.69 Increased By ▲ 0.81 (0.39%)
NCPL 62.06 Increased By ▲ 5.64 (10%)
NPL 72.35 Increased By ▲ 6.58 (10%)
OGDC 318.90 Increased By ▲ 2.60 (0.82%)
PACE 11.08 Increased By ▲ 0.21 (1.93%)
PAEL 44.58 Increased By ▲ 2.28 (5.39%)
PIBTL 16.90 Increased By ▲ 0.12 (0.72%)
PPL 222.61 Increased By ▲ 1.92 (0.87%)
PRL 63.79 Increased By ▲ 0.14 (0.22%)
PTC 73.65 Increased By ▲ 1.83 (2.55%)
SSGC 27.25 Increased By ▲ 0.17 (0.63%)
TBL 9.86 Increased By ▲ 0.14 (1.44%)
TELE 8.83 Increased By ▲ 0.10 (1.15%)
TPL 20.31 Increased By ▲ 0.91 (4.69%)
TPLP 14.93 Increased By ▲ 0.15 (1.01%)
TREET 24.11 Increased By ▲ 0.71 (3.03%)
TRG 62.29 Increased By ▲ 0.88 (1.43%)

ISLAMABAD: The Federal Tax Ombudsman (FTO) has issued a warning to the taxpayer that perjury is considered a serious offence, which can be used to usurp the power of the court.

According to an order issued in favour of the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR), the taxpayer did not disclose the filing of a revised income tax return, giving a false statement before the FTO.

The complaint was filed under section 10(1) of the Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000 (FTO Ordinance), against the department for issuing a partial income tax refund of Rs2,183,572/- for the tax year 2024 against the total claim of Rs4,707,902/-.

Briefly, the complainant is a business individual who filed an income tax return for the tax year 2024 claiming a refund of Rs 4,707,902 against the adjustable tax deduction under section 236A of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001 (the Ordinance). The complainant had e-filed a refund application on 13.10.2024. The complainant earlier filed a complaint 5720/KHI/IT/2025 for non-processing of the refund claim. This forum vide recommendation directed the department to dispose of the refund claim on its merit in accordance with the law. In compliance, the department issued a refund order sanctioning a refund of Rs 2,183,572.

This complaint has been lodged for issuing a partial income tax refund of Rs 2,183,572 for the tax year 2024 against the total claim of Rs 4,707,902 despite verifiable documentary evidence of the total tax paid challan of Rs 5,049,085 under section 236A already available in the IRIS. The complainant has also e-filed a fresh refund application for the balance refund and prayed for the balance refund alongwith compensation against the delayed refund.

The complaint was referred to the Secretary, Revenue Division, for comments, 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, the DR appeared, and the case was discussed with him. Moreover, the author of the refund order dated 17.07.2025 was also contacted, who categorically stated that the AR of the complainant had misguided the august forum of the FTO, and insisted on a refund claim against the original income tax return for the tax year 2024, whereas the complainant had already filed a revised income tax return enhancing his total taxable income from Rs 2,380,915 to Rs.10,001,465/- and tax chargeable from Rs 311,183 to Rs 2,865,513. The complainant also enhanced the claim of total tax paid from Rs 5,049,085 to Rs 9,124,185, but the actual tax verified from the system is only Rs 5,049,085, resulting sanction of refund of Rs 2,183,572 only.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2025

Comments

Comments are closed for this article.