Advocate Petitions Madras High Court for I-T Probe Against MP Over Alleged Income Discrepancy
In a significant legal development from Chennai, an advocate has approached the Madras High Court seeking judicial intervention to direct the Directorate General of Income Tax (Investigation) to conduct a thorough inquiry and initiate proceedings against Member of Parliament K Navas Kani from the Ramanathapuram constituency. The petition alleges suppression of income and misrepresentation of financial details.
Court Directs I-T Department to Respond Within One Week
The plea, filed by advocate K Venkatachalapathy, was admitted by the first bench comprising Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan. The bench has directed the Income Tax department to file its response to the allegations within one week, setting the stage for a potential high-profile investigation.
Details of the Allegations Against MP Navas Kani
According to the petitioner, Navas Kani served as an MP from the Ramanathapuram constituency from May 2019 to May 2024 and was recently re-elected for the 18th Lok Sabha term spanning 2024 to 2029. He submitted affidavits to the Election Commission of India in both 2019 and 2024, disclosing his movable and immovable assets, sources of income, and family details as required by law.
The core allegation centers on what the petitioner describes as a "disproportionately steep increase" in assets compared to declared income. Navas Kani's income sources, as per the affidavits, include his MP salary, rental income, and director's salary from a private firm, while his wife's income is limited to rental earnings.
Analysis Reveals Significant Disparity Between Income and Asset Growth
The petitioner presented a detailed financial analysis based on the affidavits and supporting data. This analysis indicates that the total net surplus available for investment by the MP and his family during the period from 2019 to 2023 was merely 5.74 lakh rupees after accounting for taxes, personal expenses, and loan repayments.
Despite this limited surplus, the family reportedly acquired movable and immovable assets worth a staggering 20.84 crore rupees during the same five-year period. This represents a vast disparity, suggesting that the declared income does not align with the substantial asset growth observed.
Petitioner Claims Prior Complaint to I-T Department Went Unanswered
The advocate petitioner stated that he had previously made a detailed representation to the Income Tax department regarding these discrepancies. However, despite lodging the complaint, no action was taken by the authorities, prompting the move to seek judicial recourse through the Madras High Court.
This case highlights ongoing concerns about financial transparency among public officials and could set a precedent for how such allegations are investigated. The court's directive for a swift response from the I-T department underscores the urgency and seriousness of the matter.
