ISLAMABAD: What is being described as unprecedented, the Federal Tax Ombudsman (FTO) directed the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue (ATIR) Registrar to initiate appropriate action under the law to reverse / modify the orders passed by some ATIR members.
Instead of accepting the complaint, the FTO rejected the review application for being incompetent with the order that separate Contempt proceedings shall be initiated against the complainant under section 16 of the FTO Ordinance, 2000 for distortion and concealment of facts and wilful misstatements before the FTO, ATIR, and commissioner-IR (Appeals), prejudicing and obstructing the process of law.
An officer of Inland Revenue Service, working as “Accountant Member” in the ATIR, falls under the definition of “Tax Employee” as per provisions of FTO Ordinance, 2000, and in case the FTO has reason to believe that any Tax Employee has acted in a manner warranting criminal or disciplinary proceedings against him, he may refer the matter to the appropriate authority for necessary action to be taken within the time specified by the FTO.
According to the verdict, the FTO decided the complaint on 28.10.2013 and recommended that in view of the FTO’s earlier decision in C.No.577 of 2011 (Waheed Shahzad Butt versus FBR), the CIR(A) was statutorily barred from recording a contrary decision in the adjudication made by him. The FTO then recommended that FBR ask the CIR(A) to take remedial action by invoking the provisions of section 221 of the ordinance, and rectify his earlier order, so as to make it consistent with the FTO’s decision.
The amicus curiae went on to say that the FTO did not direct the FBR to order the CIR(A) to rectify his order dated 16.07.2013. Rather, he said that the FTO asked the FBR “to take cognizance” of the earlier decision of the FTO. He said that the legal meaning of the phrase “to take cognizance” was “the taking of Judicial or authoritative notice”.
When the CIR(A) became aware of the FTO’s recommendations, he sought, on his own volition and rectify his order dated 16.7.2013 and issued show cause notice to the complainant.
The complainant appeared before the CIR(A) on 25.11.2013 and requested him to stay the proceedings on the ground that he had filed a review application before the FTO. Earlier, the complainant had appeared before the CIR(A) on 20.11.2013 and sought adjournment that was allowed till 25.11.2013. After securing the adjournment from the CIR(A) on 20.11.2013 he appeared before the ATIR and argued the departmental appeal against CIR(A) order dated 16.07.2013. He did not inform the ATIR that the CIR(A) had already initiated action to rectify / reverse his order dated 16.07.2013 and he had secured adjournment from CIR(A) against the proposed action of reversal of his earlier order. Having succeeded in keeping ATIR in the dark, the complainant obtained decision in his favour in the pending departmental appeal that was against the CIR(A) order dated 16.07.2013 disposed of by the ATIR on 20.11.2013- on the very date that the complainant had moved application for adjournment of hearing before CIR(A).