Madras HC dispenses with personal appearance of Chidambaram's 3 family members before IT officials

The Madras High Court today ordered dispensing with the personal appearance of former Union minister P Chidambaram's wife Nalini, his son Karti and daughter-in-law Srinidhi before Income Tax authorities in connection with notices issued against them under the black money act.

The interim order was passed on appeals filed by the three family members of the former finance minister challenging the April 12 order of Justice T S Sivagnanm refusing to restrain the Income Tax (IT) authorities from sanctioning any prosecution for alleged economic offences against them.

The three alleged that the actions of the IT officials were politically motivated and vindictive.

When the appeals came up before the summer vacation bench of Justices V Bharathidasan and N Seshasayee, it dispensed with their personal appearance before the IT authorities.

The single judge bench had refused to allow their prayers for restraining sanctioning of prosecution by the IT department under the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax 2015 Act.

The Deputy Director of Income Tax (Investigation) had issued notices to the three seeking details of documents in respect of a property in Cambridge in the UK and with regard to certain investments in Nano Holdings LLC in the US.

Justice Sivagnanm had directed the IT department to pass orders in accordance with the provisions of the Act within the time stipulated in it and also held that all the three are entitled to canvass all the factual and legal contentions before the authorities.

In their writ appeals, the three submitted that the single judge bench had erred by not issuing a writ of mandamus.

The proceedings were initiated against them under section 10(1) of the black money act for which replies supported by documents and evidence had been submitted and clarifications sought for were also provided, they said.

They said IT returns had been filed already with details for the assessment years 2015-16 and 2016-17. Despite the explanation and submission of particulars sought by the authorities, no orders were passed on the notices.

The "deliberate delay" on the part of the IT authorities in passing the order was clear evidence that the officials were not being honest or diligent in the discharge of their statutory duty, they alleged.

Hence, a direction ought to have been issued by the single judge bench to the officials to perform their duty under law, they contended seeking to set aside the order of Justice Sivagnanm.