Daily Times

ISLAMABAD: The Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) has informed the Supreme Court that it is challenging the order of the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue (ATIR) before the Lahore High Court (LHC), wherein the ATIR decided the matter of Rs 648,258,103 in favour of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) leader Jahangir Tareen.

Admitting the difference in Tareen’s agricultural income tax for the year 2011 as declared to the FBR and the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP), the board stated that the official concerned took cognisance of the matter in May 2016.

The FBR further stated that assessment for the said year was finalised through an order in August 2016 and addition of Rs 648,258,103 was made in income of the taxpayer, as the same was found not to be agricultural income and was held to be from unexplained sources in terms of Section 111(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance (ITO) 2001.

The FBR said that at the first appellate stage, the above addition was upheld in favour of the department by the Inland Revenue commissioner, but the ATIR decided the issue in favour of Tareen in October 2010.

The board submitted its statement in the top court following a petition by Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) leader Hanif Abbasi filed against Jahangir Tareen, seeking directives for his disqualification from the National Assembly over alleged tax evasion.

It was further submitted that the relevant field office falling under the administrative control of the FBR had also undertaken proceedings against Tareen with respect to tax years 2010 and 2011 on the issue of discrepancy observed in the agricultural income declared by him before the ECP and the FBR, as this discrepancy constituted definite information in terms of Section 122(5) of ITO 2001.

It submitted that Tareen’s wealth statements for the tax period 2010-2015 were examined, and said he had not disclosed any offshore company to the FBR.

The FBR said that in 2010, Tareen declared Rs 120 million as agricultural income tax before the ECP, while the same tax declared before the FBR was Rs 545 million, creating discrepancy of Rs 425 million.

Similarly, the FBR stated that in 2011, Tareen declared Rs 160 million as agricultural income tax before the ECP, while Rs 700,282,618 was declared before the FBR, creating discrepancy of Rs 540,282,618.

The four-page reply further stated that for the tax year 2010, the FBR field office concerned confronted Tareen over the difference in agricultural income, and upon furnishing a reply, no adverse inference was drawn by the officer concerned with respect to the difference in agricultural income, and proceedings were finalised accordingly through an order in June 2016.

“The said order was found by the competent authority in the relevant field formation of the FBR to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue,” it said.

Resultantly, proceedings under sections 122(5A) and 122 (4) of the ITO were initiated against Tareen by way of issuance of notice in August 2016. However Tareen challenged the vires of the notice and sought stay from the LHC, which still holds the field.

The FBR also assured the top court that it was performing its duties in accordance with law and shall readily abide by any directives of the top court.