The Federal Tax Ombudsman (FTO) has directed the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) to instruct the Member-IR (Operations) to issue a standard operating procedure (SOP) for the guidance of aggrieved taxpayers regarding the reactivation of blocked mobile phone SIMs. According to an order issued by the FTO on Monday, the Chairman of the FBR should call for an explanation from the concerned officer for not attending the hearings on the due dates.
While investigating various complaints, it was observed that recently, the SIMs of 506,671 taxpayers have been blocked by the FBR under section 114B of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 (the Ordinance), via Income Tax General Order (ITGO) No. 1/2024 dated April 29, 2024, on account of inactive taxpayers. However, the referred ITGO does not prescribe any SOP regarding the reactivation of SIMs. It only mentions that the SIMs will remain blocked until ordered by the 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 where the SIMs have not been reactivated even after the taxpayers have fulfilled the requirements for being on the ATL and filed tax returns along with the surcharge for ATL. No written SOPs are available on how the SIMs of a taxpayer will be reactivated once they become an active taxpayer on the FBR portal.
Given the above, an own-motion investigation was initiated on account of SIMs being blocked by the FBR for being ‘Inactive Taxpayer,’ creating hardships for taxpayers.
It is evident from the above section that it does not prescribe any SOP regarding the reactivation of SIMs, nor does the ITGO dated April 29, 2024, lay down any procedure for the aggrieved person to apply for the reactivation of their blocked SIM.
It only mentions that the SIMs will remain blocked until ordered by the Commissioner IR or FBR. Therefore, it is observed that no SOP has been laid down by the Board for the guidance of the aggrieved taxpayers. These inconsistencies, infirmities, and deficiencies stated above constitute maladministration in terms of section 2(3)(ii) of the FTO Ordinance, 2000, the FTO order added.
