New Delhi, November 16, 2020: The Supreme Court, on Monday, issued notice to Income Tax Department on a plea by Congress Member of Parliament, Karti P Chidambaram and his wife, Srinidhi Chidambaram challenging the transfer of a tax-evasion case, against them from a lower court to special court for MPs and MLAs.

The Supreme Court Bench comprising of Justices Ashok Bhushan and R Subhash Reddy also asked the petitioners to serve a copy of the plea on Solicitor General, Tushar Mehta who entered appearance on behalf of the IT department.

On January 7, the Special Court dismissed the discharge application moved by the duo and directed the prosecution to proceed further with framing charges. Subsequently, Karti Chidambaram moved the High Court challenging the dismissal. He also obtained an interim stay against the prosecution from framing charges against him and his wife.

The High Court refused to quash the complaints filed by the IT Department, concurring with their submission that they were not registered based on the assessments, but following searches made in one of the companies viz., Advantage Strategic Consulting Private Limited, in which Karti Chidambaram is a director.

In their appeal before the Supreme Court, Karti Chidambaram and Srinidhi have questioned the transfer of the case stating that the special court does not have the jurisdiction to try the case. They have raised the following questions in their petition:

• If the transfer order is without authority of law and the court to which the transfer is made is a court without jurisdiction to try the case, is it not ipso facto violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and it is not necessary to prove any further prejudice?
• Can a Court confer jurisdiction on another Court to try a case when such latter Court does not have the jurisdiction to try the case under the statutory scheme?

   

  Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal appearing for Chidambaram argued that the High Court misinterpreted the provisions of the Income Tax Act in relation to creation of Special Courts. "HC erred in coming to a conclusion that the exclusive jurisdiction of the ‘Special Court’ provided for would come into existence only when such a court has been designated, making the entire provision for Special Courts under the Act otiose," reads the plea. Senior Advocate Sibal further added that all findings were in petitioner's favour and that HC had decided the matter "only on prejudice."

The case relates to alleged non-disclosure of Rs.6.38 crore income by Karti Chidambaram and Rs.1.35 crore by Srinidhi Chidambaram in 2015.

According to the IT Department, Karti Chidambaram and his wife had received the amount in cash for the sale of a land at Muttukadu near Chennai years ago, but did not disclose it in their IT returns. The Deputy Director of IT Department, Chennai, filed a complaint on September 12, 2018 against the petitioners before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court-II (Economic Offences) for offences under Sections 276C(1) and 277 of the IT Act. Subsequently, the case was transferred to the Special Court.

Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal, KTS Tulsi, Amit Desai along with Advocate Kunal Vajani and AoR Kunal Mimani appeared for the petitioners.

News Courtesy:PIB | Hindu| DC | LE | LI | LO | IE | LL | PTI |ht | ET | UNI | DNA | FP | Jurist |IndToday|

Disclaimer: Information, facts or opinions expressed in this news article are presented as sourced supplied by the concerned either as press release, press statement or via other source of information, websearch engines and internet and do not reflect views of Lawtime and hence Lawtime is not responsible or liable for the same. As a source and news provider, India info Comm Network's website Lawtime.in is not responsible for any of the copy right violation or for accuracy, completeness, suitability and validity of any information in this news article

Comments

Name*:
Phone number:
Email address*:
Comments and questions*:
Enter web form code*: reload image * - required fields.