K G Balakrishnan

From Indpaedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Hindi English French German Italian Portuguese Russian Spanish

This is a collection of articles archived for the excellence of their content.

Relatives hid crores of income

Ex-CJI's relatives hid crores of income, reveals I-T probe, Feb 15, 2017: The Times of India

Nothing Found Against Balakrishnan, Says Centre's Report In SC

The income tax assessment report of former Chief Justice of India K G Balakrishnan and his relatives, which has been placed in the Supreme Court, revealed that his family members had not disclosed crores of income which was found out by the department during assessment of their assets.

The report was filed by the Centre in the SC, which is hearing a PIL seeking an SIT probe against them alleging that properties worth crores of rupees were purchased by his family members during Balakrishnan's tenure at the top court.

The report contains assessment of incomes of his daughters, sons-in-law and brother from financial year 200506 to 2012-13. The report said there was nothing against the ex-CJI but revealed that members of his family had undervalued their assets and finally settled the case after paying tax on the income assessed by the I-T department.

It says that income as per ROI of his son-in-law P V Sreenijan in 2009-10 was Rs 26.61 lakh but the assessed income was found to be around Rs 1.64 crore. Similarly , his income was shown as Rs 47.47 lakh in 2010-11, but was assessed at Rs 2.11 crore. His income as per ROI was Rs 22.06 lakh but assessed income was Rs 1.04 cro re and that he had to pay Rs 1.02 crore as tax and interest.

In case of his other son-inlaw M J Benny , the report says his income as per ROI was Rs 28.94 lakh in 2010-11, but assessed income was Rs 1.79 crore and he had paid Rs 97.73 lakh as interest and tax.

The report says income of his daughter K B Sony was Rs 38.69 lakh as per ROI but was assessed at Rs 1.67 crore and she had paid Rs 38.74 lakh as interest and tax in 2010-11.

Although the Centre contended that the I-T depart ment had given a clean chit to Balakrishnan and his family members for allegedly amassing disproportionate and benami assets, it admitted that some of the properties were undervalued by them but they had now paid taxes as per market value.

The Centre's contention was opposed by advocate Prashant Bhushan who told a bench headed by Justice Dipak Misra that the “shocking revelations“ must be probed by an independent agency .

AG Mukul Rohatgi had earlier told the SC that the I-T wing had conducted a probe but it failed to find any evidence of DAs against them.

Bhushan, appearing for NGO Common Cause, said 21 properties were bought by Balakrishnan's relatives whose source of income was limited. He also produced sales deeds of the properties.

Personal tools