Chidambaram IT case: HC reserves order on pleas by family members

According to the I-T department, the Chidambaram family had failed to disclose a property they jointly own in Cambridge in the UK, worth Rs 53.7 million

P Chidambaram
Press Trust of India Chennai
Last Updated : Sep 03 2018 | 11:43 PM IST

The Madras High Court reserved its order Monday on the appeals moved by former Union minister P Chidambaram's wife, son and daughter-in-law, challenging the prosecution initiated against them by the Income Tax Department under the Black Money Act.

A division bench of Justice S Manikumar and Justice Subramonium Prasad reserved its order after recording the submission made by senior advocate Gopal Subramanium on behalf of the petitioners.

On August 31, the bench dispensed with the appearance of Chidambaram's wife Nalini, his son Karti and daughter-in-law Srinidhi before the special court for economic offences cases in Egmore till September 14.

The issue pertains to alleged non-disclosure of overseas assets and bank accounts held by the trio.

According to the I-T department, the three had failed to disclose a property they jointly own in Cambridge in the UK, worth Rs 53.7 million, which amounted to an offence under the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act.

The department has also alleged that Karti Chidambaram had failed to disclose an overseas bank account he holds with Metro Bank in the UK and investments he had made in Nano Holdings LLC, USA.

He had also "failed" to disclose investments made by Chess Global Advisory, a company co-owned by him, which amounts to an offence under the Black Money Act, the department has said in its complaint filed in the special court in May this year.

Assailing the prosecution, the three approached the high court. As a single judge bench refused any relief, they moved an appeal.

On June 27, the first bench headed by the then Chief Justice Indira Banerjee reserved its order on the appeal.

However, as Justice Banerjee was later elevated to the Supreme Court, orders could not be pronounced.

The appeal was then referred to the bench headed by Justice Manikumar for fresh hearing.

During the hearing by Justice Banerjee, counsel for the appellants had contended that prima facie no offence can be made out against them under the Black Money Act.

The act deals with undisclosed income raised from foreign assets. But in the present case, all the relevant information had been disclosed by the petitioners in their returns filed under the Income Tax Act, the counsel had said.

*Subscribe to Business Standard digital and get complimentary access to The New York Times

Smart Quarterly

₹900

3 Months

₹300/Month

SAVE 25%

Smart Essential

₹2,700

1 Year

₹225/Month

SAVE 46%
*Complimentary New York Times access for the 2nd year will be given after 12 months

Super Saver

₹3,900

2 Years

₹162/Month

Subscribe

Renews automatically, cancel anytime

Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans

Exclusive premium stories online

  • Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors

Complimentary Access to The New York Times

  • News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic

Business Standard Epaper

  • Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share

Curated Newsletters

  • Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox

Market Analysis & Investment Insights

  • In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor

Archives

  • Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997

Ad-free Reading

  • Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements

Seamless Access Across All Devices

  • Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app

More From This Section

First Published: Sep 03 2018 | 11:42 PM IST

Next Story