Federal Tax Ombudsman (FTO) has directed the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) to instruct Member-IR (Operations) to issue a Standing Operating Procedure (SOP) for guidance of the aggrieved taxpayers (non-filers) for reactivation of blocked mobile phone Sims.

According to an order of the FTO issued on Monday, Chairman FBR should also call for the explanation of the officer concerned for not attending the hearings on due dates.

While investigating various complaints, it was observed that recently, the SIMs of 506,671 taxpayers have been blocked by FBR under section 114B of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 (the Ordinance), vide Income Tax General Order (ITGO) No. 1/2024 on account of Inactive Taxpayers. However, the referred ITGO does not prescribe any SOP regarding reactivation of SIMs. It only mentions that the SIMs of these will remain blocked until ordered by Commissioner or FBR.

Similarly, while investigating Complaint No. 5785/ISB/IT/2024, the SIM of a taxpayer was blocked despite being on the Active Taxpayers’ List. Moreover, instances have been reported wherein the SIMs have not been reactivated even after the taxpayers have fulfilled requirements for being on ATL and filed tax return along with surcharge for ATL.

Whereas, no written SOPs are available as to how the SIMs of a taxpayer will be reactivated once he becomes an active taxpayer on FBR portal. In view of above an own motion investigation was initiated on account of SIMs having been blocked by FBR for being ‘Inactive Taxpayer’ creating hardships for taxpayers.

It is evident that the law does not prescribe any SOP regarding reactivation of SIMs nor does the ITGO dated 29.04.2024 lay down any procedure for the aggrieved person to applying for reactivation of his blocked SIM. It only mentions that the SIMs of these will remain blocked until ordered by Commissioner IR or FBR.

Therefore, it is observed that no SOP has been laid down by the Board for guidance of the aggrieved taxpayers. Therefore, these inconsistencies, infirmities and deficiencies stated above constitute maladministration in terms of section 2(3)(ii) of the FTO Ordinance, 2000.

It is further observed that the IR (Operations Wing) was issued hearing notices twice but no one attended hearing on fixed dates. This serious neglect on the part of the IR wing (Operations) shows inefficiency in discharge of duties which constitutes maladministration in terms of section 2(3)(ii) of the FTO Ordinance, FTO order added.