ISLAMABAD - Federal Tax Ombudsman Abdur Rauf Chaudhary has rejected two review petitions filed by Director General, Intelligence & Investigation Inland Revenue FBR and a domestic manufacturer of tiles and upheld the impugned order passed by FTO Advisor, regarding leakage of confidential information by the agency to the media.
In this regard, FTO Abdur Rauf Chaudhary has issued order-in-view where interestingly both the review petitions filed by intelligence department as well as manufacture have been dismissed. This is a first of its kind of case where the FTO has dismissed the review petitions of both the parties. The main issue is related to the leakage of confidential information by the directorate to the media which was contested by the local manufacture.
According to an order-in-review officially released by the FTO Secretariat, both of the parties were aggrieved from the order and filed review petitions before the FTO against the said order. The Intelligence and Investigation wing of FBR “I&I” took this plea that the words “Unbridled powers” should be expunged from the impugned order. The FTO, while dismissing their review, held that merits of the case cannot be discussed in review petition since it is not an appellate forum and the scope of a review is limited to the extent of any error floating on the face of the order.
The main issue is related to the leakage of confidential information by the directorate to the media which was contested by the private party before the FTO. The cross-review petitions were filed by Director General, Intelligence and Investigation IR, FBR and the private party. FTO said that after a careful evaluation of the submissions made by the two sides, it has not been established by either side (Complainant or Dept) that there was any readily discernible mistake floating on the surface of the order. Additionally the complainants have endeavored to re-argue his case afresh which is not permissible in review jurisdiction. For all these reasons, both of the review petitions No. 03/2016 and 05/2016 filed by department and complainant respectively, have been rejected.