The counsel appearing for Karti Chidambaram submitted before the bench that the Madras High Court had misconstrued the top court’s order in the Ashwini Upadhyay case regarding special courts for trial of cases against MPs/MLAs.
The additional solicitor general sought time to file reply in the case.
The high court on May 12, 2020, had dismissed Karti Chidambaram’s and Srinidhi Chidambaram’s plea challenging the transfer of a tax-evasion case, filed against them before a lower court, to a special court for MPs and MLAs.
It had also rejected another plea from both the petitioners to quash the complaint lodged by the Income Tax (IT) Department in connection with the case.
The matter relates to alleged non-disclosure of Rs 6.38 crore income by Karti Chidambaram and Rs 1.35 crore by his wife Srinidhi Chidambaram in 2015.
According to the IT department, Karti Chidambaram, elected to the Lok Sabha from Sivaganga constituency in the 2019 elections, and his wife had received the amount in cash for the sale of a land at Muttukadu near Chennai years ago, but did not disclose it in their IT returns.
The deputy director of the IT department, Chennai, had filed a complaint on September 12, 2018, against the petitioners before the additional chief metropolitan magistrate court-II (economic offences) for offences under sections 276C(1) and 277 of the IT Act. Subsequently, the case was transferred to the special court.
On January 7, the special court dismissed the discharge application moved by the duo and directed the prosecution to proceed further with framing charges against the accused. PTI
PKS ANB ANB