No discrepancy found in Tareen’s tax record

Tax authority submits reply before top court

ISLAMABAD: In the on-going legal battle between the ruling PML-N and the PTI, the government’s agencies have made minute inquiry of the tax history of Jahangir Tareen, but failed to point out any tangible anomalies so far.

What was quite unusual in this process, the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) even checked discrepancies where Tareen declared his agriculture income in 2010 as Rs700,282,618 while the petitioner – PML-N’s Haneef Abbasi – claimed it was Rs700,282,263.



“This is what happens when you are in the opposition,” remarked a senior official of the FBR. The FBR report presented before the Supreme Court on Friday did not mention any major discrepancy in Tareen’s tax record.

However, the tax authority informed the apex court that it is in the process of challenging the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue (ATIR), Lahore’s order, wherein it set aside Rs199 million tax demand against the senior PTI leader.

The tribunal in its judgment on October 24 had dismissed the FBR’s plea and said the government agency had acted in an “indecent haste and with a pre-determined mind”.

The FBR in its reply states that wealth statements of Tareen from 2010 to 2015 have been carefully examined and it has been found that he has not disclosed any offshore company.

However, it stated that it has already been investigating the issue of the Panama leaks and issued a notice to Tareen under Section 176 of the ITO 2001. The reply further states that it has been alleged by the petitioner that Tareen has evaded provincial agriculture income tax payable in respect of FY2010-11.

“Collection and assessment of agriculture income tax does not fall within the purview of the FBR. The levy, collection and assessment of agriculture income tax fall in the domain of the provincial government.”



It is submitted that for 2010, the highlighted difference in agriculture income was confronted to Jahangir Khan Tareen by the field office of the FBR concerned in May 2016 under Section 122(9) read with Section 122(5) of the ITO-2001.

“Upon furnishing the reply by Tareen, no adverse inference was drawn by the officer concerned with respect to the difference in agriculture income, and the proceedings were finalised accordingly vide 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.

“Resultantly, proceedings under Section 122(5A) and Section 122 (4) of the ITO were initiated against him by way of issuance of a notice in August 2016.

However, Tareen challenged the vires of the notice before the LHC. The LHC had granted stay in the matter which still holds the field.”

Published in The Express Tribune, November 26^th, 2016.