Bengaluru, March 17: The arguments in the Supreme Court which is hearing the appeal challenging the acquittal of J Jayalalithaa, Tamil Nadu chief minister were focused on largely around the manner in which she had filed her income tax after the case was filed against her.
B V Acharya, Special Public Prosecutor for Karnataka argued before a Bench comprising Justices Pinaki Chandra Ghose and Amitava Roy that it is the duty of the accused to explain the source of income.
The Supreme Court has adjourned further hearing on the matter to March 29. On that day, the counsel for Jayalalithaa is expected to submit his responses to the arguments made by the prosecuting state, Karnataka. [Jayalalithaa earned Re 1 salary, but amassed Rs 66 crore: Karnataka]
The arguments today:
Acharya argued that the Supreme Court has laid that "known sources of income" must be taken to mean "Sources known to the complainant", and not sources know to the public servant says B V Acharya. It surpasses anyones imagination how there was such a steep rise in the income for a person who was supposed to be receiving only Rs 1 as monthly salary.
Jayalalithaa had not responded to notices issued to her by the Income Tax Department. This only showed that she had no answer for this rise in income. This was then followed a major rush to file the Income Tax and that was after the DA case was filed.
It is quite surprising when Jayalalithaa paid the tax in a teething hurry after the DA case was filed, the balance sheets were not asked, Acharya questions in the Supreme Court. We have made out a case against her and it proves beyond reasonable doubt that a case of disproportionate assets has been made out.
She not only filed the IT returns after the DA case was filed, but also created documents falsely to substantiate her claim that the wealth was not disproportionate assets. All action taken by her was after the registration of the case. Not once before that did she even respond to notices, Karnataka also contended.
I do not subscribe to the claim that the income was generated from Namathu MGR, the newspaper. Jayalalithaa claimed that there was a subscription, but there was none until 1996, the period the disproportionate income as pointed out. There were no advertisements either. So how did she raise money from the newspaper.
The only intent was to cheat and misguide says B V Acharya while once again pointing to Jayalalithaa's hurried filing of tax. How was Rs 14 crore deposited into Sasi Enterprises? It was said that this money was from Namathu MGR. How was this raised when it had no subscription scheme or advertisements.