The Income Tax department has issued a show-cause notice to Telugu Desam Party (TDP) chief and former Andhra Pradesh chief minister Chandrababu Naidu. The notice, dated August 4, questions the legality of ₹118 crore allegedly received by Naidu as kickbacks from infrastructure companies, potentially labeling it as “undisclosed income.”
The Central Circle, Hyderabad, issued the notice, rejecting Naidu’s preliminary objections, which claimed that the tax proceedings should have been initiated by the jurisdictional assessing officer. The notice indicates that the department has gathered statements and seized materials suggesting unaccounted income through bogus sub-contracts, allegedly benefiting the former CM.
Section 153C of the I-T Act allows the revenue department to take action against a party other than the searched individual if incriminating evidence is found. Interestingly, this notice emerges amidst speculations of a possible alliance between TDP and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) ahead of the 2024 general elections, fueled by Naidu’s meeting with Union Home Minister Amit Shah.
Notably, Naidu, the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), and the finance ministry have not responded to queries regarding this matter. The I-T investigation is rooted in searches at the premises of Manoj Vasudev Pardasany (MVP), who allegedly orchestrated sham sub-contractor operations on behalf of Shapoorji Pallonji & Co. Pvt Ltd (SPCL) in Andhra Pradesh. These searches revealed messages and documents indicating cash generation and its delivery to Naidu, as well as funds being siphoned off from infrastructure projects.
The notice highlights MVP’s connection with Naidu’s personal secretary P Srinivas and funds allegedly diverted from government projects. It claims that Naidu was the ultimate beneficiary of payments received by various entities through these bogus contracts. The notice concludes by questioning why ₹118,98,13,207 should not be treated as Naidu’s undisclosed income for the assessment year 2020-21.
This development has raised significant questions about the financial dealings of a prominent political figure and could have far-reaching implications.
