Islamabad
Justice Qazi Faez Isa’s attorney has argued before the Supreme Court that the judge’s wife paid more income tax than Prime Minister Imran Khan.
During the 10-judge full court hearing presided over by Justice Umar Bandial, Justice Isa’s council Babar Sattar compared two years of tax record of the prime minister with the judge’s wife.
The counsel told the court that Justice Isa’s wife had paid income tax of Rs134,000 and Rs147,000 in two years, while the prime minister paid only Rs10,003.
While the counsel was explaining the applicability of tax laws, Justice Bandial stated that the fundamental question was not about the tax but was about the source of funds related to the purchase of foreign properties.
Moreover, Justice Faisal Arab noted that there was an allegation on Justice Isa of concealing and purchasing properties in violation of money laundering laws.
Satter argued that the presidential reference stated that the supreme court judge had violated section 116 of the Income Tax Ordinance and had not disclosed the properties his family members owned in his statement.
Justice Isa’s counsel also read out Federal Board of Revenue Chairman Shabbar Zaidi’s articles in which he said that there was no link between income tax and wealth statement.
A judge of the bench noted that if tax authorities had objected over the Justice Isa’s wealth statement, it should have issued a notice, and if no notice was issued then the matter had ended.
The hearing of the case was adjourned until Tuesday.
Justice Qazi Faez Isa’s attorney has argued before the Supreme Court that the judge’s wife paid more income tax than Prime Minister Imran Khan.
During the 10-judge full court hearing presided over by Justice Umar Bandial, Justice Isa’s council Babar Sattar compared two years of tax record of the prime minister with the judge’s wife.
The counsel told the court that Justice Isa’s wife had paid income tax of Rs134,000 and Rs147,000 in two years, while the prime minister paid only Rs10,003.
While the counsel was explaining the applicability of tax laws, Justice Bandial stated that the fundamental question was not about the tax but was about the source of funds related to the purchase of foreign properties.
Moreover, Justice Faisal Arab noted that there was an allegation on Justice Isa of concealing and purchasing properties in violation of money laundering laws.
Satter argued that the presidential reference stated that the supreme court judge had violated section 116 of the Income Tax Ordinance and had not disclosed the properties his family members owned in his statement.
Justice Isa’s counsel also read out Federal Board of Revenue Chairman Shabbar Zaidi’s articles in which he said that there was no link between income tax and wealth statement.
A judge of the bench noted that if tax authorities had objected over the Justice Isa’s wealth statement, it should have issued a notice, and if no notice was issued then the matter had ended.
The hearing of the case was adjourned until Tuesday.