Poor guy has received 13 crores from his son during the last year, although his son is showing losses in the UK to avoid taxes there.
Discrepancies pointed out in Nawaz
ISLAMABAD: A petition filed before the Election Tribunal in Lahore seeking disqualification of Nawaz Sharif shows that besides many other discrepancies and concealment in assets and income statements, as per his nomination papers, the PML-N chief has received a ‘gift’ of Rs129.83 million from his London-based son but official UK documents establish that the companies of Hasan Nawaz faced losses in the mentioned period.
The Rs110 million returned by NAB to the Sharif family-owned Ramzan Sugar Mills in January 2012 as a consequence of a Supreme Court judgement is also shown as an asset of Nawaz Sharif which according to the petition is an attempt to adjust entries and is illegal.
The petition also says that a ‘gift’ of Rs35 million given to Maryam Safdar is not reflected in the nomination papers of her husband Captain Safdar which also establishes that different entries were adjusted in mysterious ways to conceal facts.
Important points of the petition which in legal terms is called “Information placed before the Appellate Tribunal under section 14(5A) of Representation of People Act, 1976” are given below:
That the nomination form contains statement of assets and liabilities as on 30-6-2012. Nawaz Sharif (Candidate) instead of filing that statement has attached his wealth statement prescribed under section 116 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 for Tax Year 2012 and Tax Year 2011. These have been filed to fulfill the requirement of S.No.2 & 3 regarding Net Wealth last year and increase/decrease therefrom.
That as per income tax/agricultural income tax return attached with the nomination form the total income from all sources, personal expenditure and surplus is showing a deficit of Rs4 million
It is evident that out of declared and taxed income, no recourse is available for accretion in net wealth over the period from 30.06.2010 to 30.06.2012
That even from the aforesaid available information for the latest two years it is crystal clear that net wealth has increased from Rs63.7 million as on 30.06.2.010 to Rs245 million as on 30.06.2012 and this is beyond the taxed sources of income.
The Wealth Reconciliation Statement for the Tax Year 2012 prescribed with the Wealth Statement has not been filed by the candidate with the nomination papers; however the candidate has attached Wealth Reconciliation Statement for Tax Year 2011 on the format prescribed under the Income Tax Rules.
From the aforesaid data it is evident that the accretion is on account of gift from the son of Rs.129836905. Since earlier there have been allegations of money laundering on the candidate in the context of Hudabiya Paper Mills case hence the aforesaid gift from the son warranted some application of mind by the Returning Officer. The name of son from whom gift has been received is not mentioned though the name of other two children to whom gifts have been made are mentioned. The other son left is Mian Hassan Nawaz who is reportedly doing business in UK.
Mian Hassan Nawaz is the sole Director/Shareholder of Flagship Investments Limited Registration No.04199377 and its accounts audited by the Chartered Accountant for the period ending 31.03.2010 and 31.03.2011 are available on the website of the Company’s House UK which is their regulatory body like SECP. These accounts indicate that since incorporation this company as well as its subsidiary company Flagship Security Ltd are in continuous losses and has never paid any taxes hence there is no possibility at all that Mian Hassan Nawaz has been paid any dividend or such a salary etc. out of which he could gift an amount of Rs.129,836,905 to his father (candidate).
That the called up share capital is £1 only and the shareholder funds of £213,002 are in fact after deducting loss of £875008 from revaluation of property reserves of £1088009. As such no funds whatsoever are available to the son for gifting to the candidate.
8- That from the accounts it is also evident that during this year a property purchased at £1,650,000 was disposed off for profit of £ 88181 and the sale proceeds were utilized in repayment of Building Society Loan of £1120849 as on 31.03.2010 appearing at note 9 which as on 31.03.2011 is NIL. Hence the sale proceeds have been utilized for repayment of loan and were not legally or factually available with the son Mian Hassan Sharif for a gift to the candidate.
That as per section 39(3) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 any amount claimed as gift should be received through banking channel from a person holding a National Tax Number. Hence to prove the factum of gift the candidate without prejudice to the foregoing was required to produce the evidence that his son has a National Tax Number in Pakistan and the amount has been received through the prescribed banking channel and he had the sources on record with HMRC, UK to make such a gift.
That as per Annex-B of return of total income for Tax Year 2011 the tax collected by bank on cash withdrawals has been shown at Rs.333,330 which when worked back at the prescribed rate of 0.3% comes to cash withdrawals of Rs111,110,000. The cash withdrawal is a pattern wherein exemption is claimed under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 on account of foreign remittances from the undisclosed sources. Therefore the Returning Officer should have examined the bank statement.
