MUHAMMAD KHALID RANDHAWA versus SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD
Section 15, 68 (2), 74, 132 (5), 155 (1) (2), 169 (1), 170 (4) and 171 (1) Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (2000 X XV), Sections 2 (3), 9 and 10 Refused to Refund Claims The rental income complainant's representative stated that the refund requests were filed with a 3-year statement, but on behalf of the Department There was no response from, which is a defect under section 2 (3) of the Establishment. The Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000, did not issue a refund nor any order was issued by the Department under section 170 (4) of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001 and it was requested that the Department pay the amount with compensation. Be directed to issue a return on the income of the property which the taxpayer had to pay for a financial year and the advance tax deducted for years created the complainant's right to pay, the loser To enable taxpayers to be entitled to compensation even before they receive compensation, natural justice has sought section 171 (1) Income Tax Ordinance 2001, which While delayed payment of compensation is allowed at the rate of deduction, the deduction tax will be applied equally in the Advance Department, which cannot improve the assessment based on appeal decisions for two assessment years. , Showed gross negligence in terms of section 2 (3) of the Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000. The Federal Board of Revenue, in accordance with the law, recommended to pay interest / compensation on advance tax, which deducts rental income for the tax year 2006 to 2008. The Chief Commissioner should be instructed to revise the assessments for the assessment year 1994 95 and 2000 01 and in accordance with the law.
Related judgments — Federal Tax Ombudsman Pakistan, 2011
