Civil Appeal No.188 of 2019 16 . 11. The argument that the omission to disclose assets could possibly be unintentional in the circumstances of the case would have been tenable had the petitioner been a novice or a new entrant in business and politics. But where he has been neck deep in business and politics ever since early 80’s it is unbelievable that he did not understand the simple principle of accounting that his accrued and accumulated salary of six and a half years was his asset and liability of the company he was an employee of. Even otherwise, this argument cannot be given much weight when it has not been pleaded by the petitioner that the omission to mention the asset was accidental, inadvertent or unintentional. ….” 19. It may also be noted that in the case of Malik Shakeel Awan (ibid), the entire holding of the Respondent in the said case had been disclosed in the form of revenue records and other related documents and this Court came to the conclusion that a simple mathematical exercise revealed that as per the details provided by the Respondent in his nomination papers at page 79 he owned 1081 kanals and 17 marlas of land and in the grand total it had been incorrectly mentioned as 983 kanals 17 marlas. This error appeared to have crept into the printed nomination papers. The miscalculation between the area of agricultural land owned by the Respondent scribed in the printed form and as mentioned item wise in the details of the nomination papers was self evident. Further, the Respondent in the said case perhaps declared a little more land than as alleged by the Appellant thus he could hardly be accused of concealing any asset especially so as a portion of the land appeared to be undivided share in various Khasra numbers. It was in the peculiar circumstances of the said case that the explanation offered by the Respondent was found to be reasonable and logical. Consequently, the conclusion drawn by the Election