By Ramneet Kaur
The institution of an Ombudsman (a sanctioned person appointed to probe individual's complaints against a company or an organization, especially a public authority) was first created in Sweden, as early as 1809, for the redressal of citizens’ grievances. It was later adopted and followed by countries like Finland, Denmark, Norway, New Zealand, England, and India.
Ombudsman is a legal representative, appointed by a government or organization to investigate complaints made by individuals in the interest of the citizens or employees.
Usually, it is appointed by the State to oversee an investigation of complaints about improper government activity against citizens. The ombudsman's task is to take up cases of those affected by executive opinions and to probe the same on his own if demanded. As an unprejudiced investigator, the ombudsman makes examinations, collects the data objectively, and reports back to the council.
The growing reliance on the ombudsman in numerous countries is due to the growing dissatisfaction of the people regarding the lack of perceptivity, effectiveness, and fair play on the part of public officers and due to the ombudsman's simple, and speedy system of handling prayers against executive conduct.
The Administrative Reforms Commission, which was constituted in 1966, gave precedence to the problem of redressal of public grievances and submitted its first interim report on the 'Problems of Redressal of Citizens Grievances'. It recommended the creation of an Ombudsman-type institution grounded on the principle of executive responsibility to Congress. It further endorsed that complaints against ministers and registers to the government may be dealt with by an authority called 'Lokpal' and 'Lokayukta' at the Centre and State respectively.
Features
The features of these institutions as given by the committee are:
They should be demonstrably independent and unprejudiced.
Their examinations and proceedings should be conducted in private and should be invariant.
Their appointment should, as far as possible, be non-political.
Their status should be compared with the loftiest judicial functionary in the country.
They should deal with matters in the optional field involving acts of injustice, corruption, and favoritism.
Their proceedings shouldn't be subordinated to judicial hindrance and they should have the maximum latitude and powers in carrying information applicable to their duties.
They shouldn't look forward to any benefit or financial advantage from the administrative government.
The ideals of providing speedy and cheap justice were the utmost priority keeping the office independent. To ensure the same, the following vittles have been incorporated in the Lokpal and Lokyuktas Act, 2013:
Appointment is to be made on the recommendation of a commission.
The Lokpal is ineligible to hold any office of profit under the Government of India or of any State, or analogous similar posts after withdrawal.
Fixed term of three times and can be removed only on the ground of proven misbehavior or incapability after an inquiry made by the Chief Justice of India and two senior-most judges of the Supreme Court.
Lokpal will have its administrative machinery for conducting examinations.
Payment of Lokpal is to be charged to the Consolidated Fund of India. PM relation to the latter's functions of national security and public order.
Complaints of offense committed within 10 years from the date of complaint can be taken up for disquisition, not beyond this period.
Any person other than a public servant can make a complaint.
The Lokpal is supposed to complete the inquiry within six months.
The Lokpal has the power of a civil court to summon any person or authority. After disquisition, the ombudsman can only recommend conduct to be taken by the competent authority.
He can order search and seizure operations.
He shall present annually the reports of disquisition and put them before both Houses of Parliament. It may be noted that the Lokpal is supposed to probe cases of corruption only, and not address itself to redressing grievances in respect of injustices and difficulties caused by maladministration.
Ombudsman in the Income Tax Department
The Income Tax Department (also referred to as IT Department; abbreviated as ITD) is a government agency undertaking direct tax collection of the government of India. It functions under the Department of Revenue of the Ministry of Finance. It is one such public authority that has incorporated the concept of Lokpal as a grievance redressal mechanism for the citizens. The office of the Income Tax Ombudsman (Aaykar Lokpal) was created in the year 2006 to deal with complaints of the public against the Income Tax department.
The reason behind setting up offices of the Aaykar Lokpal was to facilitate the settlement of complaints through conciliation and mediation between the income tax department and the complainants.
The department's main objective was to encourage people to lodge their income tax-related complaints before the Aaykar Lokpal for quick redress. Moreover, the prescribed procedure for complaining and solving tax issues was also made easy for efficiency.
The complainant just had to write a letter to the concerned officer of the department. If the said grievance was not solved within a month, the complainant could forward the same to the senior official. If both the complaints yielded no result, then it was to be filed to the Aaykar Lokpal.
The reason for filing the complaint before the Ombudsman was to be given in the application. The relevant documents were to be attached to the application.
The time that the Lokpal generally took to redress a complaint was six months.
Functions performed by the Aaykar Lokpal:
The officer referred to as the “Income Tax Ombudsman” was an official who held independent jurisdiction and worked as an autonomous authority.
There were in total twelve offices of the Aaykar Lokpal in India. They were situated in cities such as Mumbai, New Delhi, Kolkata, etc.
Upon receiving the complaint, the Ombudsman served a copy of the same to the concerned officials. Thereafter he tried to reconcile the issue by way of mutual settlement between both the parties. The order of the Income Tax Ombudsman was called an “Award”.
The “award” of the Ombudsman had to be accepted by the department. To comply with the said order, the complainant had to communicate his acceptance within 15 days of the receipt of the award. If the complainant failed to do so, the award would have no effect.
Need for re-emergence of Tax Ombudsman to protect taxpayer's rights
Renewing India's processes for resolving complaints is necessary, as is incorporating a more comprehensive approach to boosting consumer satisfaction and safeguarding taxpayer rights.
In such a situation, it is essential that the redressal organization has sufficient teeth and is independent of the tax department to eliminate conflicts of interest, assure fair transactions, and ultimately foster trust between taxpayers and the relevant tax authority.
Since the functioning of the Ombudsman was governed by the guidelines (Income Tax Ombudsman Guidelines 2010 and Indirect Tax Ombudsman Guidelines 2011), and with the absence of an act of law empowering it with different functions and powers, the institution of the Ombudsman was rendered ineffective and the decisions were reduced to merely being advisory. The Ombudsman could settle complaints either through agreements between the complainant and the tax department through conciliation and mediation or by passing an award, with a token compensation for loss suffered by the complainant not exceeding Rs 5,000. This was a fairly low amount especially when paralleled with the Banking Ombudsman which led to less dependence of the consumers on the Aaykar Lokpal. By establishing transparency and confidence in the current tax administration system, such an organization would contribute to the success of the 'Honoring the Honest' program.
It is thus, a necessity for the ombudsman system to be re-established to ensure the protection of taxpayer's rights.
Comments