UMER TRADING CO. THROUGH MRS. JAVERIA SOHAIL AMIN versus SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD
Section 161 of Section 161 of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001, the charge of unlawful taxation and the extortionate tax demand by Inland Revenue Officers (IROs), Section 161 of the Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (2000 v. 2000) ), Sections 2 (3), 9 and 13, and Commissioner Inland Revenue (CIR) recording the conversation on IRO and CIR's mobile phone to receive bribe from the complainant-proof complainant. Prepared under which they demanded bribery to exclude the baseless charge of non-payment of withholding tax and to refrain from selecting his case for audit. ? Such a recording was found to be authentic because there was no discrepancy or breakdown in the flow of conversation with its playback or any abrupt change in the dialogue between such officers. His voice was recognized in such recordings, and he was also given a copy. With a transcript translated for a written reply to it, but he chose not to respond when the IRO had passed an illegal order under section 161 of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001, when the complaint withholding tax payment The defaulter had no default. Such recording confirmed the version of the complainant listed in his affidavit that an IRO had taken a bribe of Rs. 2, by his officials. Such motions were the same as fornication, as described under Section 2 (3) of the Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance Office of Establishment, Ombudsman. The Federal Board of Revenue recommend the necessary disciplinary action. As related
Related judgments — Federal Tax Ombudsman Pakistan, 2012
