The Income Tax Department on Tuesday informed the Madras High Court that it would initiate appropriate legal action against Ramanathapuram Member of Parliament K. Navas Kani based on the material available before it regarding allegations of suppression of income and misrepresentation.
The submission was made before the First Bench comprising Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G. Arul Murugan during the hearing of a petition filed by advocate K. Venkatachalapathy seeking a direction to the Income Tax Department to take action against the MP.
Recording the department’s submission, the bench observed that the pendency of the petition would not in any way hinder the authorities from initiating proceedings in accordance with law.
In his petition, Venkatachalapathy stated that Navas Kani had served as the Member of Parliament from the Ramanathapuram constituency between May 2019 and May 2024 and had subsequently been re-elected to the 18th Lok Sabha for the 2024–2029 term.
The petitioner said the MP had filed affidavits before the Election Commission of India in both the 2019 and 2024 elections disclosing details of his movable and immovable assets, sources of income and family information.
According to the petition, a comparison of the affidavits showed a steep rise in the MP’s assets that was disproportionate to his declared sources of income. The petition stated that the MP’s declared earnings consisted of his parliamentary salary, rental income and salary received as a director of a private company, while his wife’s declared income was limited to rental earnings.
The petitioner further submitted that an analysis of the financial disclosures indicated that the total net surplus available for investment by the MP and his family between 2019 and 2023 amounted to only ₹5.74 lakh after accounting for taxes, personal expenditure and loan repayments.
Despite this, the petition claimed that the MP and his family had acquired movable and immovable assets worth ₹20.84 crore during the same period.
The petitioner argued that the disparity between the declared income and the growth in assets suggested possible misuse of official position, misappropriation of public funds and concealment of actual income, which he said warranted investigation and legal action.
The Income Tax Department informed the court that it would proceed with action based on the available material, following which the bench recorded the submission and disposed of the matter while noting that the petition would not obstruct the department from taking further steps.
Source: Times of India
Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.
