Sarina Isa’s money trail unsatisfactory, says FBR

ISLAMABAD: Tax authorities have informed the Supreme Court that the defence put forth by the wife of Justice Qazi Faez Isa to explain the sources of investment made in the purchase of her three expensive London properties is quite unsatisfactory.

The Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) has submited its final report with the Supreme Court following its 19th June judgment that ordered the tax authorities to probe Mrs Sarina Isa and her children under the tax law (Income Tax Ordinance, 2001) by inquiring about the nature and source of funds for their offshore property.

The report said the total taxed/legitimate sources available with Mrs Sarina Isa till June 30, 2012 as per her own declarations worked out at Rs9.4 million.

The taxed/legitimate sources have already been consumed and accounted for by the taxpayer in her wealth statement e-filed for tax year 2013.

Therefore, she did not have taxed/legitimated sources for purchase of properties in question, it said.

The report said the plea regarding earning of agriculture income and subsequently its deposits to foreign currency account was not evident from any of the tax declarations e-filed by the taxpayer with the department up to tax year 2013. Moreover, no supporting details/evidence in this regard has been provided/submited till date.

FBR’S senior officers who were associated with the investigation said tax authorities were continuing to probe Mrs Isa’s income as well as her accounts.

Following the receipt of information from one of her banks on Aug 24, 2020 and addendum to show cause notice issued on the email address of Sarina Isa too, a senior FBR official added: A fresh aspect of Mrs Sarina may come into light; if it comes shall be taken separately.

According to the report, through this notice Sarina Isa was intimated that she had also operated the bank account jointly with her husband.

Although, the foreign currency transactions were undertaken yet it was neither declared by the taxpayer nor her husband until the tax year 2018 when the later declared it.

This aspect of the case coming into light does not have any bearing on the proceedings in hand and its cognizance, if any will be taken separately. It may only be observed that before the tax year 2018, neither she nor her husband had declared the said joint foreign currency bank account.