Black money case: PC’s kin appear in court, get summons for July 23

After recording their appearance, the court directed Karti Chidambaram to appear again on July 23 and adjourned the case for next hearing to that day.

The court had issued summons to them on June 20 in connection with the prosecution initiated by the Income Tax department under the Black Money Act.

The Income Tax authorities had filed a complaint against them over alleged non-disclosure of overseas assets, under Section 50 of the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and

Imposition of Tax Act. The case against them was that they had failed to disclose a property, worth Rs 5.37 crore, they jointly own in Cambridge in the UK.

Also, the department has alleged that Karti Chidambaram had failed to disclose an overseas bank account that he holds with Metro Bank in the UK and the investments he had made in Nano Holdings LLC, USA.

In addition to this, Karti also failed to disclose investments made by Chess Global Advisory, a company co-owned by him, which amounts to an offence under the Black Money Act, the department said in its complaint. Assailing the I-T department’s charge, the trio moved the High Court, seeking an interim order staying the prosecution and to direct the department to provide a copy of the complaint to them.

They contended that only a special court established under the Black Money Act was competent to take complaints under the Act and not the Egmore court.

Moreover, the authority who has ordered sanction for the prosecution, has no such authority under the Income Tax Act, they alleged.

Opposing the plea, the department submitted that the petitions were too premature, since only complaint has been filed in the special court. Concurring with the submissions, the High Court had on May 30 refused to stay the proceedings of the prosecution before the trial court.

Subsequently, on June 12, the high court directed the I-T department to provide copies of the sanction order and the complaint filed in the trial court to the accused.

Aggrieved by the order, on June 18, the department moved a review application in the high court submitting that the copies were already filed in the trial court and it would be provided to the petitioners in the due course of hearing.