The Madras high court on Wednesday rejected a plea of Congress lawmaker Karti Chidambaram and his wife seeking an interim stay on the transfer of an income tax case against them from an economic offences court to a special court trying criminal cases against lawmakers.
Karti, the son of former Union minister P Chidambaram, submitted the case should not be transferred to the special court as he was not a lawmaker at the time of the alleged offence in 2015.
The court declined to grant the relief and adjourned the matter to August 30 for filing of a counter by the high court registrar general.
On August 19, the court had adjourned the matter to Wednesday to seek clarification from the high court registrar general on the transfer of the cases.
The petitioners said they are being prosecuted for offences under section 276 C of the Income Tax Act and punishment for the said offence, if proved, is imprisonment of seven years.
They submitted it must be tried by an Assistant Sessions Judge (senior civil judge cadre), “that is by chief metropolitan magistrate...the transfer of the case to special court judge in the cadre of sessions judge is erroneous in law.”
The petitioners sought a direction from the court to return the case records to the additional chief metropolitan magistrate Court II, economic offences, Egmore. They also sought an interim stay on the case before the special court.
{{/usCountry}}The petitioners sought a direction from the court to return the case records to the additional chief metropolitan magistrate Court II, economic offences, Egmore. They also sought an interim stay on the case before the special court.
{{/usCountry}}The matter relates to the alleged non-disclosure of Rs 1.35 crore received by the petitioners in cash for sale of land in Muttukadu near Chennai.
They submitted that the transaction was completed and returns of income were filed in 2015 when the petitioner was not a member of Parliament.
The deputy director of income tax Investigation, Chennai, had filed a complaint on September 12 last year against the petitioners.
(With PTI inputs)