The Federal Tax Ombudsman (FTO) has advised the Registrar Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue (ATIR) to take appropriate action under the law to reverse/modify certain orders passed by ATIR Members, as the said orders have been passed in violation by overriding provisions of Section 18 of Federal Ombudsmen Institutional Reforms Act, 2013.
Sources told Business Recorder that while rejecting the review application by a service provider private limited company it is ordered by the FTO that Contempt proceedings shall be initiated against the complainant/taxpayer for distortion and concealment of facts and wilful misstatements before the different forums, prejudicing and obstructing the process of law. Copy of order shall also be endorsed to the ATIR Registrar to bring it to the notice of ATIR Members for appropriate action under the law to reverse/modify orders passed by the ATIR.
When contacted, Waheed Shahzad Butt, Advocate who appeared in this case on FTO's call as Amicus Curie, told this correspondent about the brief facts of this unique case. Orders passed by ATIR in ITA No 2014-2015/LB/2013 and ITA Nos.2398/LB/2013, are in violation of the mandatory and overriding provisions of Section 29 of the FTO Ordinance 2000 read with Section 18 & 24 of Federal Ombudsman Institutional Reforms Act, 2013 (FOIRA). Under the FOIRA provisions, ATIR and/or Commissioner (Appeals) cannot exercise jurisdiction to entertain a matter pending with FTO under complaint or review.
Tax lawyer further added that an officer of Inland Revenue Service working as "Accountant Member" in the ATIR falls under the broad definition of "Tax Employee" as per provisions of FTO Ordinance, 2000 and in case if the FTO has reason to believe that any Tax Employee has acted in a manner warranting criminal or disciplinary proceedings against him, he may refer the matter to the appropriate authority for necessary action to be taken within the time specified by the FTO. The Chairman FBR must have a critical check and balance system over the black and white of Tax Employees working in ATIR because every public functionary is bound to obey command of Constitution and should not hesitate to discharge his duties in accordance with law otherwise the rule of jungle would prevail which will not be in the interest of country's deteriorated taxation system and fragile economy. FTO while rejecting the complainant's review applications states, FTO decided the complaint on 28.10.2013 and recommended that in view of the FTO's earlier decision in C.No 577 of 2011 (Waheed Shahzad Butt Vs FBR), the CIR(A) was statutorily barred from recording a contrary decision in the adjudication made by him. The FTO then recommended that FBR ask the CIR(A) to take remedial action by invoking the provisions of section 221 of the Ordinance and rectify his earlier order so as to make it in line with the FTO's decision.
The Amicus Curiae appointed in the case, advised that this was not a simple case of non-payment of due refund by the dept. as was being made out by the complainant. Rather, he said that this was a case in which it was patent that the complainant had deliberately misled regular appellate fora as well as the FTO. He said that the ambient circumstances in this case clearly showed that the complainant had kept multiple fora in the dark to wrongly obtain benefit for himself at the expense of the exchequer.
A copy of this order shall be endorsed to the Registrar ATIR to bring it to the notice of Members of the Tribunal for appropriate action under the law to reverse/modify orders passed by the ATIR in ITA No 2014-2015/LB/2013, dated 20.11.2013 and ITA Nos.2398/LB/2013, issued on 10.06.2014, as the said orders are rendered per incuriam having been passed (unintentionally) in violation of the mandatory and overriding provisions of Section 29 of the FTO Ordinance 2000 read with Section 18 & 24 of FOIRA, as the FTO had already disposed of the relevant issue on 28.10.2013 in the instant case involving matter pertaining to charge of minimum tax under Section 153(1)(b) of the Ordinance.
It is evident that the complainant has not only concealed pertinent facts as detailed above but has also tried to abuse the process of law. Review application is not bona fide and therefore not competent as complainant has not approached the FTO with clean hands. In fact, he has tried to abuse the process of law through concealment before CIR(A), ATIR and FTO, the order added.
Comments
Comments are closed.