The Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) has laid down Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) which would form basis of performance evaluation of all tiers of officers cadre engaged in the audit activity. According to the approved audit policy issued by the FBR here on Saturday, the FBR has consistently strived to automate its audit procedures through business processes re-engineering to increase the audit coverage and to better allocate its resources. To optimize the impact on compliance, resources need to be allocated to balance coverage across taxpayer segment and tax types, yet address major risks to compliance.
In order to implement the aims and objective of this policy a separate audit operational plan has been prepared. The said plan, which is on an annual basis, is designed to put in place, among other things, a performance monitoring and evaluation mechanism. The said mechanism lays down qualitative and quantitative indicators for the above purpose. In addition to the performance indicators given below, Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) circulated by the Board on 15th April, 2015 shall also be made a basis of performance evaluation of all tiers of officers cadre engaged in the audit activity.
Quantitative Indicators revealed that the number of cases assigned to each audit officer; no. of cases disposed of per month, per quarter and per year by each audit officer; time spent (No of Hours) per case by each audit officer; comparison of disposal by each audit officer against target. Rate of success in meeting monthly, quarterly and annual disposal targets; no. of field audits conducted; no. of cases assigned to each RTO/LTU; no. of cases disposed of per month, per quarter and per year by each RTO/LTU and comparison of disposal by each RTO/LTU against target and rate of success in meeting monthly, quarterly and annual disposal targets. The qualitative indicators revealed average demand raised per case by each audit officer; average collection of demand per case by each audit officer; amount of demand raised per month, per quarter and per year by each audit officer; amount of collection out of demand per month, per quarter and per year by each audit officer; collection out of demand by each audit officer against target. Rate of success in meeting monthly, quarterly and annual disposal targets; compliance of check-lists and other instructions of the Board; no. of cases and demand thereof up-held at first appellate forum; average amount of tax detected per case through field audits; no. of cases where avoidance schemes and tax evasion have been identified; amount of demand raised per month, per quarter and per year by each RTO/LTU; amount of collection out of demand per month, per quarter and per year by each RTO/LTU and collection out of demand by each RTO/LTU against target and rate of success in meeting monthly, quarterly and annual disposal targets.