NAVEED ANJUM vs The SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD Ss — 2025 PTD 272 FEDERAL-TAX-OMBUDSMAN-PAKISTAN |

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

NAVEED ANJUM VS The SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD Ss. 9(1) & 10(4)---Federal Ombudsman Institutional Reforms Act (XIV of 2013), S. 9(1)---Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001), Ss.170(4) & 236-K---Way of disposing of refund claim by the Federal Board of Revenue---Maladministration---Scope---Refund application of the complainant / Government servant for Tax Year 2018 was rejected on the basis that evidence of tax deduction was not attached with the application, complainant was informed by the Chief Commissioner that his application for refund had already been rejected almost two years ago ;and that since there was no refund application pending, his case could not proceed---Validity---Order having been passed under S.170(4) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 was a classical example of departmental inattention and incompetence as on one hand, (one page )order stated that, "necessary evidence of tax payments is placed on record."---However, in the concluding para of same order the officer opined "that the taxpayer neither furnished any evidence regarding tax deduction manually not attached any evidence in support of refund claimed....... In view of above facts of the case, the refund application is rejected"---Thus, the contradiction and carelessness were more than evident---Said order, under S. 170(4) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 was silent about any opportunity of being heard given to the taxpayer prior to passing rejection order; which act itself contravened the said section which obligated the Department to afford proper opportunity of being heard---In the present case, tax deduction mainly related to S. 236-K of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2002, which was CNIC based and internally verifiable from FBR's portal---Thus, the present case reflected serious incidence of maladministration in terms of S. 2(3)(1)(b)(c) and (ii) of FTO Ordinance, 2000---Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended that FBR be directed to ensure that the concerned Commissioner was to revisit the impugned order and the claim of refund be disposed of as per law after affording proper opportunity of being heard to the complainant---Complaint filed by the taxpayer was disposed of accordingly.

NAVEED ANJUM vs The SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD Ss — 2025 PTD 272 FEDERAL-TAX-OMBUDSMAN-PAKISTAN

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 PTD