DA Case: SC decides to verify the I-T details of Former CJI- KG Balakrishnan’s Kin

New Delhi: In connection with the Income Tax Assessment Order, relating to the Income- Tax returns of the family members of Former Chief Justice of India- K. G. Balakrishnan, which was made in a case against him for allegedly amassing disproportionate and benami assets during his tenure at the apex Court, now the honourable Supreme Court has decided to examine such order.

It was decided by the Supreme Court yesterday, i.e. on Monday, 14th March, where the bench was comprising of Justice- Dipak Misra and Justice- Shiva Kirti Singh was told by the Attorney General- Mukul Rohatgi that the Income Tax department has assessed the properties of Balakrishan’s family member, however, found failed to find any evidence of disproportionate assets. Moreover, it is notable that after the apex court found favouring the Income Tax investigation in the case, the Government responded.

Moreover, the Attorney General- Rohatgi was requested by the Bench to place the Income- Tax documents before the court and also required Rohatgi to prepare a Chart of the Income- tax assessment details of Justice- Balakrishnan’s kin during his tenure in the Apex Court, and such chart was required to be submitted by Rohatgi by 12th July. Also, as per Attorney General- Rohatgi, some of the properties investigated, were just undervalued by them however, they have now paid taxes as per market value.

It was seen that the matter was put forwarded before the Court through a Public Interest Litigation which was filed by NGO Common Cause. And in said PIL it was claimed that the properties work of crores of rupees were purchased by Balakrishnan’s daughter, son- in- law and brother. This petition was filed by NGO in the year 2013 and it was sought that the Balakrishnan to be removed from his post as a Chairman of National Human Rights Commission.

It was also found contended by the NGO before the court that the 21 properties were purchased by his kin whose income’s source was limited and they were unable to purchase such properties on their own.

Source: lawyerslaw.org (Our media Partner)

FacebookTwitterGoogle+Pinterest

Related posts

Leave a Comment