S. MANZOOR RAZA Versus MEMBER (ADORN.), CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE, ISLAMABAD
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal. The petitioner, an Assistant Income-tax Officer, challenged a departmental order imposing the penalty of withholding four increments without cumulative effect. The petitioner was charge-sheeted for accepting a belated income-tax return and finalizing an assessment within one day while investigation proceedings were allegedly pending against the assessee. Although the Inquiry Officer exonerated the petitioner regarding the first charge, he found the petitioner guilty of the second charge, a decision subsequently upheld by the departmental authority and the Federal Service Tribunal. The core legal question presented for the Supreme Court's consideration is whether, given the assessee's past history and the nature of the complaint received, the petitioner's actions in finalizing the assessment under the relevant tax laws were legally justified or constituted misconduct warranting disciplinary action under the Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules. The Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the petitioner's conduct violated established rules and regulations.
- Was the petitioner justified in making an assessment under Section 59 of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979 given the past history of the assessee?
- Did the petitioner's act of finalizing an assessment constitute a violation of law or rules sufficient to attract the provisions of the Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules 1973?
- Section 59, Income Tax Ordinance 1979
- Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules 1973
ORDER
SALEEM AKHTAR, J.‑‑‑ The petition seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal. Service Tribunal whereby his appeal against departmental order of withholding four increments without cumulative effect under Notification dated 26‑10‑1987 issued by the Central Board of Revenue was dismissed.
2. The petitioner is an Assistant Income‑tax Officer and during the period 1‑1‑1985 to 3‑9‑1985 he was posted as Assistant Income‑Tax Officer (Salary) Circle II under the charge of Commissioner of Income‑taut, Central Zone `D', Karachi. He was required to deal with the cases of salaried individuals. He was charge‑sheeted for accepting a belated return of income-tax of Muhammad Ashraf Tai for the assessment year 1984‑85 and for finalising the assessment within one day of receiving the duplicate return when investigation proceedings were being conducted against the assessee. The petitioner submitted his reply to the charges levelled against him in which he denied the first charge and explained that the return had already been filed by the assessee on 29‑6‑1984 within time and was entered in inward register at serial No. 301 and the Inspector had prepared the assessment order and demand notice. In respect of the second charge he referred to the past history of the assesee in which he had been assessed for last two assessment years as a salaried person and qualified for self‑assessment. In compliance with the instructions of the Central Board of Revenue the assessment was to be made in the normal way. He further pointed out that the complaint received by him was with respect to M/s. Tai Bundoo Judo Karate Centre and not the assessee and therefore he had referred it back to be dealt with by the Income‑tax Officer who had the jurisdiction to deal with the assessments of association of persons. He further pleaded that he had no jurisdiction to deal with the cases of association of persons. The Inquiry Officer exonerated him from the first charge, but found him guilty of charge No. 2 and the punishment imposed was maintained in Departmental appeal as well as by the Service Tribunal.
3. Leave is granted to consider the question whether in the facts and circumstances of the case considering the past history of the assessee and the complaint referred to the petitioner, was the petitioner justified in making assessment under section 59 of the Income‑tax Ordinance and was such an act in violation of any law and rule to attract the provisions of the Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules.
M.B.A./S‑750/5 ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Leave granted.