Maryam Nawaz files additional documents before SC refuting Imran’s allegations

Women Parliamentary Caucus playing important role in women's global empowerment: Maryam Nawaz

ISLAMABAD, Jan 17 (APP): Maryam Nawaz on Tuesday through her counsel Shahid Hamid, senior advocate submitted additional documents before the five-judge bench of the Supreme Court, strongly refuting the baseless allegations of Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf chief Imran Khan.
In her application moved under Supreme Court Rules of 1980, she had attached certified copies of her wealth and bank statements and the relevant record to clarify her position.
A five-member bench headed by Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa is hearing the petitions moved by PTI chief Imran Khan and others regarding Panama Papers leaks.
Placing record under the relevant laws, the bench is prayed to dismiss the pending petitions and issue appropriate order against the petitioner for falsely maligning the respondent.
Maryam Nawaz in her plea stated that she had never been dependent on her father after her marriage in December 1992. The non-agriculture and agriculture income during the last five tax years (2012 to 2016) stood around Rs 39,174,184. She further said that she continued to live with her husband and three children after her marriage.
“The applicant/respondent has been living in a separate house in the Shamim Agri Farms since shortly after her marriage and except for
the period of exile in Jeddah from 2000 to 2007, she has continued to live there with her husband (respondent no. 9) and (3) children,” she maintained.
The occupants of the houses in the Shamim Agri Farms, including the
applicant/respondent contributed to the common expenses, she said, adding, in the tax year 2013, her contribution was Rs 5 million as acknowledged in the tax return of Mst. Shamim Akhtar for the year.The documents stated that there are five houses in Shamim Agri Farms (popularly known as the ‘Raiwind Estate’). It is named after Mst Shamin Akhtar, the grandmother of the applicant as 364 out of 384 kanals of land of farms is owned by Mst. Shamim Akhtar who controls all the common expenses including electricity, maintenance, security and food.
It further stated that the occupants of five houses are Mst Shamim Akhtar, Mian Shahbaz Sharif, the family of late Abbass Sharif and the applicant. The document stated that the occupants of houses in Shamim Agri Farms including the applicant, contribute to the common expenses.
In tax year 2013 the applicant’s contribution was Rs 5 million as acknowledged in the tax return of Mst Shamim Akhtar for this year, it added. It also stated that the applicant’s contribution in the year 2014 was Rs 6 million and her contribution in tax year 2015 was Rs 6 million.
The documents further said that the petitioner himself filed applicant/respondent’s wealth statement for tax year 2010 and the entry shows that in that year the applicant was creditor of the father to the extent of Rs 2.2 million.
Also that she had advanced to, and not borrowed from, Chaudhry
Sugar Mills Ltd an amount of Rs 42,304,310 as on June 30, 2010. Also that she was the creditor of her grandmother to the extent of Rs one million, also, that her net assets as on June 30, 2010 were Rs 73,510,431, the documents stated.
The false allegations that applicant had borrowed aforesaid amounts from her father, grandmother and Chaudhry Sugar Mills Ltd in tax year 2010 stems from self evident failure to correctly read the tax documents placed on record by the petitioner himself, the documents added.
The documents further stated that the accepted tax return of the applicant for the year 2010 of wealth tax acknowledges liability of Rs 2.2 million to the applicant and the accepted tax return of Mst Shamim Akhtar for the same year of wealth statement acknowledges liability
of Rs one million to the applicant.
In the tax year 2011 Respondent No 1 (Prime Minister Muhammad Nawaz Sharif) purchased for the applicant 85K-19M of agriculture land on Mauza Sultankey, Tehsil City, Lahore. The registered sale deeds were also submitted before the court.
The documents said that Muhammad Nawaz Sharif’s accountant showed this purchase in his wealth statement because at that time there was no other column in the FBR prescribed form for purchases in names of persons who were not dependents.
Opinion of A. F. Ferguson & Co on October 7, 2016 has been obtained in this matter, which said the purchase was rightly entered and the FBR has since prescribed a separate column No 14 in the prescribed wealth statement form for ‘assets in other name’ vide SRO 841(I)/2015 dated August 26, 2015.
According to the documents, the applicant paid her father in tax year 2012 for the land purchased for her in tax year 2011 through banking channels which shows on June 18, 2012 a credit of Rs 24.851 million to the Standard Chartered account of respondent No 1 and a corresponding debit of Rs 24.951 million to the Habib Bank account of the applicant.
The 85K-19M of land, alongwith other land purchased by her during tax year 2012 all through registered sale deeds, is reflected in applicant’s return/wealth statement for tax year 2012.
Adding further the documents said, the aggregate income of applicant and her husband have been further supplemented by the salary and allowances that he has drawn since 2008 as a member of the National Assembly details of which are contained in CMA 187/217 and Capt. (retd) Safdar (Respondent 9) has been paying tax since he joined government service in 1986 and he was in government service till exile to Jeddah.
The document maintained that the self evident and malafide purpose of false and frivolous allegations that the applicant is dependent on her father is try and disqualify him for not declaring her assets in his nomination form.
In the prayer clause of CP 29/2016 there is no prayer that the applicant be declared to be a dependent of respondent No. 1, said the documents adding, in any event, this is not a matter that is even remotely of public importance or related to petitioner’s fundamental rights.
The document stated that the gifts made to the applicant during last six tax years 2011-16 have been declared by the respondent No.
1. The allegations that the gift of Rs 31.70 million in tax year 2011 was not through crossed cheque is incorrect as it would be evident from perusal of the bank statements of Standard Charted Bank and Habib Bank.
The applicant prayed that the attached documents and related statements may be placed on record and appropriate orders passed against the petitioner for falsely maligning the applicant/respondent.