Discrepancies in Udhayanidhi Stalin’s affidavits? Income-Tax Department seeks time to verify

CHENNAI: The verification of election affidavits is undertaken only after the declaration of results, the Income Tax Department informed the Madras High Court, and sought additional time to examine the alleged discrepancies in the disclosures in the documents filed by DMK leader and Deputy Chief Minister Udhayanidhi Stalin for the 2021 and 2026 elections.

R Kumaravel (56), a voter from Chepauk–Triplicane constituency, filed a writ petition before the court, contending that a comparative analysis of the affidavits submitted by Udhayanidhi for 2021 and 2026 polls indicated the disappearance of previously declared assets, unexplained variations in loans, mischaracterisation of financial transactions, and inconsistencies between affidavit disclosures and corporate filings.

In the counter affidavit, G Sudarshan, Deputy Director of Income Tax (HQ–Investigation) submitted that the Standard Operating Procedure for verification of election affidavits filed by candidates contesting Legislative Assembly and Parliamentary elections was issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes in 2019.

According to that, the verification process commences only after the declaration of results by the Election Commission of India. The Investigation Directorate is then given an overall time limit of 150 days from the date of initiation to complete the process.

As per the CBDT guidelines, the officer added, verification of election affidavits is undertaken suo motu by the respective investigation directorates immediately after the announcement of results.

He also pointed out the Income Tax Returns for the relevant financial years do not necessarily reflect investments or loans as on the exact dates of filing of the affidavits for the 2021 and 2026 Assembly elections by Udhayanidhi Stalin.

In view of this temporal mismatch between affidavit dates and financial reporting periods under the returns, a direct comparison could not be undertaken without detailed verification, reconciliation of records, and enquiries with the parties concerned, the department said.

The department submitted that relevant financial details were not readily available and that further enquiry was required, and sought additional time.

Considering the request, the court adjourned the matter to June for further hearing.