NAVEED ILYAS versus SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD
Sections 120, 122 (5A) and 122A of the Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (2000V of XXXV), Sections 2 (3), 9, 10 and 16 of the arbitrary assessment complaints are placed in the Completion Tax Regime of the tax year 2006 had gone. The complainant was replaced as a manufacturer / supplier of automotive parts in 2007 and the proceedings under section 122 (5A) of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001 were not only arbitrary, as the Income Tax Ordinance 2001 Under Section 122 (5A), the Additional Commissioner passed this order without identifying any patent error under section 120 of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001, making it clear that some departmental officials have refunded. They were prepared in the early stages of disrupting the claim that such an order would be illegal and disobedient. Should have been vacated under Section 122A of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001. The department had dealt with the disrespect for them as a manufacturer / supplier, when it was registered as an industrialist on the Federal Board of Revenue, and such irrational and unlawful behavior was described in Section 2. Was causing ()) (ii) The establishment of the Office of the Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000, was made to the Federal Board of Revenue to ensure that proceedings are governed by section 122A of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001. To the complainant within 21 days; after the Federal Tax Ombudsman has already made a formal decision on the matter, to instruct the authorities within this matter, within 15 days, to instruct them in the matter of illegal and arbitrary conduct; Why can't action be taken under Section 16 of Income Tax, Ordinance 2000 launched against them
Related judgments — Federal Tax Ombudsman Pakistan, 2011
