RADIANT GLASS (PVT.) LTD. versus SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD
Complaint against the issuance of section 2 (3) tax returns, establishment of the Office of the Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XVX of 2000), ss 170 (4), 171 and 120, reduction of tax under the provisions of Income Tax Ordinance 2001 Additional payment for delayed refunds due to taxpayers is subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Tax Ombudsman Maldestination and deduction of tax from source under various provisions of the Income Tax Ordinance under the scope complainant / taxpayer against the law. Has been done The 2001 Complainant believed that the Department failed to process the return / imagined assessment within a mandatory period of sixty days under Section 190 (4) of the Ordinance, and sought the intervention of the Federal Tax Ombudsman's Commissioner, Inland. Revenue was under an obligation to, on its own, dispose of any claim arising out of the income tax return, which was assessed under section 120 (1) of the Income Tax Order. Plans considered under section 170 (4) of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001 and must be approved within 60 days, 2001, within 60 days of the order date. And if this was not done, then the delay in clearing the claim for refund was clear and such delay had to be paid under section 171 of the Ordinance of the Department, in the present case, the sixty-one required for disposal. Failed to process daytime frame. The claim for a refund, and such termination, was equivalent to law and misconduct under section 2 (3) of the Office of the Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, the 2000 Federal Tax Ombudsman issued to the Federal Board of Revenue the Chief Commissioner. Recommended. Q.
Related judgments — Federal Tax Ombudsman Pakistan, 2014
