Islamabad:
The High Court of Islamabad (IHC) rejected a brief request filed by a former director general of the IB, Brigadier (RETD) Imtiaz Ahmed, against the issuance of a notice of evidence by the FBR for having held a Benami house.
The former IB chief was acquitted by a court of responsibility for accusations of having mobile and motionless properties beyond his sources of known income. However, later, the FBR told him an opinion under the law of 2017 for having kept a precarious house under a front.
The IHC judge, judge Muhammad Azam Khan, in his order, noted that the two offenses are of a different nature and under different laws, because the offense under the National Ordinance of Responsibility (NAO), 1999, relates to property beyond its source of revenue known, while the law of 2017, the offense is distinct by being the benefit of a Benami transaction.
“Since the offenses are distinct, the petitioner accusation in both cases does not constitute a double incrimination,” said the order. Hafiz Ahsaan Ahmad Khokhar Advocate represented the FBR while the FBR commissioner, Benami Zone, also pleaded before the IHC unique bench.
The judgment noted that the word “Benami” means nameless, nameless or fictitious. The Benami transaction is used to designate a transaction which is really carried out by a person without using their own name but in the name of another.
“In this case, the disputed opinion was issued by the respondent n ° 1 [FBR] petitioner [ex-IB chief] Under article 22 (2) of the law of 2017, to show the cause concerning the house in question and to know why these goods should not be treated as a Benami property.
“A similar opinion was issued to the respondent n ° 2 (owner of the straw) in which it was mentioned that during the CDA investigation [Capital Development Authority]It was confirmed that the property had been transferred in June 1999 and that the subject’s house is still on behalf.
“The ADC also confirmed that the respondent NO2 had executed a general proxy in favor of the petitioner [ex-IB chief]. The opinion also reveals that the property has always been useful beneficial to the petitioner and that the product’s rent product in subject has always been collected in the form of money by the petitioner. “”
According to the opinion, the tax declarations filed over the years have shown financial health which did not justify the purchase of such an expensive property and the owner of the straw became approval against the Brigadier (RETD) Imtiaz Ahmed in the procedure initiated by the NAB. “The respondent NO2 [straw owner of the house] conceded Benami’s provision of the purchase of this particular property, among others, declared the prescription.
The order noted that the petitioner [ex-IB chief] should have challenged FBR’s opinion by subjecting a response to the relevant authority under the 2017 law – the authority / judgment arbitration committee.
