ISLAMABAD: Sarina Isa, the wife of Justice Qazi Faez Isa, asked the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) to provide information about the people who accessed, and/or were provided “confidential” information and documents maintained in the bureau and banks.

“Please disclose the names of all those to whom my confidential information/documents maintained by FBR and banks was provided, which I have gathered include Member (IR Operations) Muhammad Ashfaq Ahmed, Special Assistant to PM on Accountability Mirza Shahzad Akbar, Federal Law Minister Farogh Naseem, former attorney general Anwar Mansoor Khan and Prime Minister Imran Khan.”

The wife of Justice Isa said “all of them are either a government servant or hold or have held public offices, and Abdul Waheed Dogar, who wants to ensure that everyone is tax compliant and whose complaint you entertained and acted upon”.

Sarina Isa stated that none of them can possibly object, if she is provided the same information/documents that was provided to them.

“I look forward to receiving the information and documents about Muhammad Ashfaq Ahmed, Mirza Shahzad Akbar, Farogh Naseem, Anwar Mansoor Khan, Imran Khan and Abdul Waheed Dogar, their respective spouses and children.

Failure to concede to my genuine request will confirm that you continue to act at the behest of the members of the PTI and MQM and their former attorney-general and the said complainant (Waheed Dogar)”.

In her 21-page reply to notices dated 21st August 2020 – one under Section 122(9) and the other under Section 111(1)b) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 - she asked Zulfiqar Ahmed, Commissioner (IR) that the information provided by her now and which was provided earlier is more than sufficient to meet all the queries and incontrovertibly establishes that I have been fully compliant with the law”.

“Therefore, kindly withdraw the notices.

However, your Section 122(9) Notice calls upon me to appear in person to explain your [my] view point with proper documentary evidence".

She said that “you (Zulfiqar Ahmed) have acted in complete derogation of the dictates of natural justice and immediately desist from acting further.

If you continue to act in derogation of the dictates of natural justice you will undoubtedly be convinced of my Legal Objections.

“Since you are either disregarding the law or interpreting it in new and novel ways, please let me know in which other cases the cited legal provisions have been so disregarded by you and you have interpreted the law as you are doing in my case.”

Sarina Isa explained that in her earlier reply dated 10th August, 2020 she had also challenged interpretation of Section 116A, whereby the Commissioner (IR) [Zulfiqar] considered its insertion in the Ordinance as redundant/superfluous.

“Therefore, I had called upon you to, Please provide me the number of persons who filed wealth statements under section 116A and of those to how many were similar notices issued by FBR, but you did not provide me a single example.

She asked the Commissioner (IR) to provide the said information/particulars to her now so she can take comfort in the fact that she is being treated as any other taxpayer and not being singled out.

“The object of a hearing, which you must know, is to enable the taxpayer to address the concerns which have been expressed. If you do not disclose the information and provide me with copies of documents you rely on then how can your concerns be properly addressed.

“If you proceed with a hearing without disclosure and without providing me with the documents relied upon by you it will be nothing but a fraud, in violation of the Ordinance and the Constitution. Therefore, kindly first provide me the information and copies of all documents that you rely on, provide me sufficient time to examine and verify them and then fix the date of the hearing. Please intimate me the date, time and place where l should attend.”

She claimed that her income tax record and banking records were “illegally” accessed and information/documents “illegally” gathered and provided to third parties. “You [FBR] also treat me, my husband and children as one person for the purpose of the Ordinance but do not do so with others.

“You fix artificial deadlines for me to meet, and disregard the legal requirement of providing me at least 15 days to respond but you do not respond to a single legitimate objection of mine or to my request for provision of documents on which you rely.

“Significantly, you also do not dispute that someone else was the author of the notices sent earlier.

“I and my children are tax compliant in the United Kingdom and any income whenever derived from any of the three properties is deemed under United Kingdom law to be that of those in whose names the properties stand.

“I continue to derive substantial amounts from my agricultural lands, and some of these amounts I invest in saving certificates issued by the Government of Pakistan (proof of which I have already provided to you) and on profits derived therefrom income tax is deducted (the Savings Centre has issued such certificates which have also been provided to you).

“You disregard my agricultural income by purportedly relying on section 111 and treating it as ‘unexplained income’.

“However, you intentionally disregard the fact that the proviso to section 111 of the Ordinance (on which you rely), which accepts income derived from ‘agriculture on which, "agricultural income tax [is] paid under the relevant provincial law’ was added through the Finance Act, 2013.

“The proviso does not stipulate that it has retrospective application; therefore, in accordance with the rules of interpretation of statutes and the General Clauses Act, it will apply prospectively.

“You allege that I could not have earned and saved enough to justify buying three properties in London, one for £236,000 in the year 2004 and two in the year 2013 for £245,000 and £270,000 respectively.

“Section 122(2) of the Ordinance stipulates that after five (5) years tax matters attain finality.

“One property was purchased in the year 2004, that is over 16 years ago and the two others in the year 2013, that is over seven years ago.

“Despite repeatedly calling upon you to do so, you have not explained how you are acting contrary to the stipulated five years limitation period.

“Under section 174(3) of the Ordinance l am required to maintain record for not more than six years, this period too has expired.

“Despite the said statutory requirement you have not explained how you keep seeking records from me, which are older than six years.

“Section 116A of the Ordinance was inserted through the Finance Act, 2018 when, for the first time, ‘foreign income and assets statement’ was required to be filed.

“I complied with this new legal requirement and filed my returns and statements with regard to foreign income and assets for Tax Year 2018 and again for Tax Year 2019, paid requisite tax and the same were accepted by FBR.”

Copyright Business Recorder, 2020