Find a Lawyer

MST. SOFIA ABIDA versus SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD

Section 96 Office of the Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV 2000V), Section 2 (3) CBR Circular No. 3 of 1994, dated 20 5 1984 The Department of Refused Appeal failed to effect an order The department had not issued any amended demand notice for the year nor had it filed for payment or refund with IT30 compensation for the matter, but to no avail, the SC claimed that the department had It has been directed to issue a refund voucher and also due to delay in payment of compensation. The return for accuracy of returns was delayed inappropriately and unfairly on two accounts, namely the failure to give effect to the appeal orders and the First Appellate Authority passed a re-review order after the original assessment order was specified. As a result, time was stopped. The demand became inaccessible The department did not care to prosecute the cases at the appropriate time. All such factors led to the conclusion that the refund of the participant's alleged / assisi's was illegal, unfair and arbitrarily withheld here. Even if some challan was missing, the department could have made the same claim it had failed to make before the complaint / SC was not only entitled to the original refund but also to pay the compensation due to delay in payment of the refund. The Federal Tax Ombudsman recommends that the Central Board of Revenue be directed to the competent authority to include the amount Upon reconciliation, promptly pay the refund in question for the purpose for which the complainant submitted. Complainant under section 102 of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979, related challan; ask a advocate free from Feroz Walla lawyer