Tweet
With elections round the corner in Uttar Pradesh, the CBI has raised pitch against CM Mayawati holding that there was prime facie material to suggest her role in amassing.
In a fresh affidavit filed in Supreme Court where Mayawati filed a case alleging political witch-hunt against the investigation agency, the CBI clarified that the Delhi High Court decision of August 3, 2011 giving her a clean chit on income tax violations cannot be seen as absolving her of her ‘criminal’ guilt.
The agency said, “The investigation against the petitioner (Mayawati) is based on cogent evidence available in form of documentary and oral evidence which show that there is a criminal nexus between income of the relatives and the petitioner as well as between Mayawati and her donors and relatives.”
CBI claimed that the Delhi HC decision cannot be treated as final since the IT Department was intending to approach the Apex Court in appeal against the said order. CBI told the court that it would soon file a chargesheet against her before the CBI judge in Lucknow court and maintained the scope of criminal proceedings were different from civil proceedings conducted by the IT agency.
Drawing a distinction between its ongoing probe from that of IT department, the affidavit said, “The findings of the income tax authorities are relevant and material only for taxation purposes and cannot have any bearing on the material evidence collected during a criminal investigation.”
In a fresh affidavit filed in Supreme Court where Mayawati filed a case alleging political witch-hunt against the investigation agency, the CBI clarified that the Delhi High Court decision of August 3, 2011 giving her a clean chit on income tax violations cannot be seen as absolving her of her ‘criminal’ guilt.
The agency said, “The investigation against the petitioner (Mayawati) is based on cogent evidence available in form of documentary and oral evidence which show that there is a criminal nexus between income of the relatives and the petitioner as well as between Mayawati and her donors and relatives.”
CBI claimed that the Delhi HC decision cannot be treated as final since the IT Department was intending to approach the Apex Court in appeal against the said order. CBI told the court that it would soon file a chargesheet against her before the CBI judge in Lucknow court and maintained the scope of criminal proceedings were different from civil proceedings conducted by the IT agency.
Drawing a distinction between its ongoing probe from that of IT department, the affidavit said, “The findings of the income tax authorities are relevant and material only for taxation purposes and cannot have any bearing on the material evidence collected during a criminal investigation.”
