In a setback to Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Mayawati, the Delhi high court on Friday allowed the income-tax department to go ahead with re-assessment of her income for the financial year 2001-02.
A bench headed by Justice Vikramajit Sen dismissed Bahujan Samaj Party chief Mayawati's plea seeking to restrain the department from re-assessing her income, claiming that a prior mandatory notice was not served on her.
The court, while passing the order, said Mayawati has failed to prove her case. The UP chief minister had moved the court challenging the I-T department's decision to re-assess her income for 2001-02.
Mayawati, in her petition, had claimed that she did not receive any notice from the income tax department which is mandatory under the income tax laws for reassessing income.
She had earlier on January 7 slammed the income tax department for reassessing her income without serving her the notice.
The I-T department had refuted her contentions. "Notice was issued on March 24 last year at her Humayun Road residence in Delhi but it was said that she had shifted to Lucknow. The notice was then sent by mail to her Nehru Road address. It was then re-directed to the chief ministerial residence at Kalidas Road in Lucknow and then it returned to the department," the I-T department had claimed.
The BSP chief, however, had denied that she refused to receive the I-T department's notice. She also refuted the charge that the notice was re-directed by her to another address.
Mayawati is also facing a case of alleged tax evasion in the high court for the assessment year 2003-04 which was filed by the I-T department against the income tax appellate tribunal's decision giving her a clean chit.
The tribunal in November 2007 had held that gifts amounting to Rs 65 lakh were given to Mayawati by her supporters out of love and affection and they were not taxable income.
The Centre, however, had submitted that the tribunal erred by accepting her contention about the source of her income. The cash and property presented to the BSP leader should be taken as part of her annual taxable income, it had contended.
