These aspects in the banking department relate to administrative matters. The work in the I-T Department is mostly of a quasi-judicial nature where the ombudsman will have no major role to play. The dispute under the I-T Act and other allied legislation relate to assessments and matters connected therewith, namely, rectification of orders passed in assessments, reassessment proceedings initiated, computation of incomes, refunds and allied matters, and so on. The I-T Act has provided a four-tier appellate machinery for resolving issues concerning these aspects.

These are Commissioners of Income tax (Appeals), Income-Tax Benches of Appellate Tribunals, High Courts and the Supreme Court where the I-T Department orders can be challenged for getting relief. No outside agency can interfere in such disputes.

Then there are provisions concerning revisions under Section 264 of the I-T Act by the CIT, where aggrieved taxpayers can take the matters for getting relief at cheaper costs. The I-T Act also provides a machinery of Settlement Commission headquartered at Delhi and Benches at the other three metros where assesses, at any stage of a case relating to them, can make applications to settle their cases. Chapter XIXB of the Act also provides for advance rulings in certain situations.

Thus there are no aspects concerning the taxpayers which can be settled "through the process of conciliation, meditation or arbitration". Likewise, there are no disputes between two or more I-T authorities or offices (like between one bank and another) which need settlement through an independent authority such as the `ombudsman'.

As far as the first set of functions is concerned, namely, "resolution of complaints and facilitation of satisfaction or settlement of complaints", the grievances pointed out by the Kelkar Committee are delays in giving effect to appellate orders, getting refunds, and so on. For redressing such complaints, the tax department does not need an outside agency. What needs to be done is a better organisation of work within itself.

The Department is already having a network of public-relations officers. Further, the taxpayers can also approach the higher officers of the Department, such as CCIT, CIT, Additional, Joint and Deputy CIT, and if any complaints remain unresolved at these levels, assistance of even the CBDT can be sought.

Also, there are no grounds to believe that senior functionaries, which take decisions involving crores of revenue, cannot provide requisite relief in such matters. Hence, there is no need to create another institution of ombudsman for looking after the routine type of complaints and make the Government incur further heavy expenditure.

If the current machinery of the PRO is found to be inadequate, it can be strengthened from among the existing staff, much of whom are likely to be in surplus consequent to outsourcing of the various functions and rapid computerisation of the department's working. In the alternative, a separate Directorate of Public Grievances can be constituted and placed directly under the CBDT.

It may be mentioned that at the Kanpur branch of the RBI, two successive ombudsmen have been retired staff of the I-T Department. If they can work in that capacity in the banking sector, I-T employees can certainly perform such functions more efficiently in their own department. There seems to be no basis in not trusting them for such work.

Concerning tax professionals, there are already bodies such as bar councils and professional institutes of the ICAI, ICSI, and so on. Complaints against their misconduct can be better handled by them rather than the departmental ombudsman, who will have no powers to initiate action against professionals. For legislative proposals concerning tax laws, there are umpteen trade, commerce and professional bodies which are doing this task. And with the CBDT already there, another body for this purpose is not needed.

If a new institution of ombudsman is created, it would be another white elephant in the already overcrowded bureaucracy and will not serve any useful purpose. It would merely increase the taxpayers' burden, something totally unwarranted.

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication