Madras HC restrains I-T dept from acting against DMK MP | MENAFN.COM

Sunday, 02 October 2022 03:37 GMT

Madras HC restrains I-T dept from acting against DMK MP


Chennai, Dec 6 (IANS) The Madras High Court on Monday directed the Income Tax department not to take action including recovery proceedings against DMK leader Kathir Anand who is also the member of Parliament from Vellore Lok Sabha seat.

The case was related to seizure of Rs 11.48 crore from the residence of a couple in Vellore district during the Lok Sabha elections of 2019.

Kathir Anand is the son of senior DMK leader and state water resources minister, S. Duraimurugan.

Justice C. Saravanan of the Madras High Court passed an order on two writ petitions filed by Kathir Anand against the order passed by an Additional Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 144 A of the Income Tax Act as also the subsequent assessment order.

As the assessment order has already been passed, Justice Saravanan passed interim orders restraining the department from initiating recovery proceedings. The court also directed the standing counsel for the Income Tax department, A.N.R. Jaya Pratap to file counter-affidavits by January 3 when both the petitions would come up for hearing.

The counsel for the petitioner, R. Sivaraman in his argument said that the Income Tax department had during raids in several places in Vellore in 2019 seized an amount of Rs 11.48 crore from the residence of one Damodharan and Vimala and subsequently, Vimala's brother Srinivasan deposed before the department stating that the money belonged to him.

However, an Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax gave notice to Kathir Anand stating that the money was actually his and sought an explanation as to why it should not be treated as his income. The counsel of the petitioner said that his client responded to the show cause notice on September 17 and filed an application before an Additional Commissioner of Income Tax to review the action taken by the Assistant Commissioner to conduct the assessment properly.

However, the counsel for the petitioner argued that the Additional Commissioner rejected the petition and reproduced the assessment report of the Assistant Commissioner and hence wanted the court to intervene and quash the assessment.




Legal Disclaimer:
MENAFN provides the information “as is” without warranty of any kind. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, images, videos, licenses, completeness, legality, or reliability of the information contained in this article. If you have any complaints or copyright issues related to this article, kindly contact the provider above.