Digvijay `intrigued` by timing of ITAT order on Bofors
  • This Section
  • Latest
  • Web Wrap
Last Updated: Wednesday, January 05, 2011, 22:28
New Delhi: The timing of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) order, which has led to resurfacing of the Bofors issue, has intrigued the Congress.

AICC general secretary Digvijay Singh today posed a number of questions on the timing as also the content of the ITAT order that has been latched up by the Opposition to target Congress and party chief Sonia Gandhi on the issue of corruption.

"It is intriguing. The case was to be heard on 4th of January and it came on 31st. The appeal was that of late Win Chhadda's son. How did Quattrocchi's name came in...To the best of my knowledge, Win Chadda's case assessment order had no mention of Quattrocchi. How did this name find place in Appellant Authority's order," Singh asked.

His remarks have come on a day when Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee has said that the government was examining the decision of the Income Tax tribunal in the Bofors case and will decide the future course of action later.

"As the Law Ministry has pointed (out), we are examining the (Bofors) papers. After that it will be seen," he told reporters when asked about the future course of action by the government on the recent ruling of the ITAT.

In its ruling, the ITAT had said that kickbacks of Rs 61 crore were paid to the late Win Chaddha and Italian businessman Ottavio Quattrocchi in the Howitzer gun deal and they are liable to pay tax in India on such income.

The order further said, "... Inaction in this regard may lead to a non-existent undesirable and detrimental notion that India is a soft state and one can meddle with its tax laws with impunity."

Asked whether he sensed a "foul play" in the ITAT order, Singh gave an evasive answer.

"I am only saying that it is very intriguing" he said. He said that though he has not seen the assessment order in Win Chadda case passed earlier "it should be seen in the assessment order that whether Quattrocchi's name was mentioned in that or not."


First Published: Wednesday, January 05, 2011, 22:28

comments powered by Disqus