| Case ID |
47d23c03-f902-4285-9d2d-c0e57f411458 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Review Application No. 29-K in Complaint No. 849-K |
| Decision Date |
Nov 24, 2001 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The review application was allowed, and the order passed in the absence of the complainant was recalled. The notice served to the complainant was determined to be invalid as it was sent after the date of hearing. The evidence presented showed that the complainant was not given proper notice, leading to the decision being overturned. The Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended that the proceedings initiated under section 65 of the Income Tax Ordinance were illegal and should be closed and cancelled. The case established that the assessment was based on a change of opinion rather than definite information, which is necessary to reopen assessments under the law. |
| Summary |
In the case of Rao & Company vs. Secretary, Revenue Division, the Federal Tax Ombudsman reviewed a complaint regarding a tax assessment dispute. The complainant argued that they did not receive timely notice for the hearing, which led to an unfair decision against them. The Ombudsman found that the notice had indeed been served too late, thus violating the principles of fair administrative action. This case underscores the importance of proper notification in tax proceedings and clarifies the standards for reopening assessments under the Income Tax Ordinance. It highlights critical aspects of tax law, including the definitions of 'definite information' required for reassessment, and the necessity for compliance with statutory procedures. The decision to recall the previous order and recommend closure of the proceedings reinforces the commitment to legal fairness and transparency in tax administration. This case serves as a precedent for similar future disputes, emphasizing the protection of taxpayer rights against administrative errors. Keywords: tax law, Federal Tax Ombudsman, Income Tax Ordinance, tax assessment, legal fairness, taxpayer rights. |
| Court |
Federal Tax Ombudsman
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR
|
| Lawyers |
Nizam-ud-Din, ITP,
Ahmed Saeed, IAC,
Hamid Saeed Khan, Special Officer
|
| Petitioners |
RAO & COMPANY, KARACHI
|
| Respondents |
SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD
|
| Citations |
2002 SLD 517,
2002 PTD 2143,
(2002) 86 TAX 167
|
| Other Citations |
Central Insurance Co. and others v. C.B.R. 1993 PTD 766,
1993 SCMR 1232,
Republic Motors Ltd v. Income Tax Officer 1990 PTD 889,
Philips Electrical Company of Pakistan v. Income Tax Officer and another 1990 PTD 389
|
| Laws Involved |
Income Tax Ordinance, 1979,
Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000
|
| Sections |
62,
65,
13(1)(dd),
14(8),
9
|