The Income Tax Department informed the Supreme Court on Monday that it will not take any coercive steps to recover approximately Rs 3,500 crore from the Congress party until the conclusion of the Lok Sabha elections.
The apex court bench, headed by Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Augustine George Masih, heard the petition filed by the Congress challenging the IT department’s proceedings. This development came two days after the Congress revealed that it received two additional notices in addition to the penalty of Rs 1,823 crore.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the IT department, stated during the hearing, “I want to make a statement in this matter. The Congress is a political party, and since elections are ongoing, we are not going to take any coercive action against the party.” He clarified that the department is not commenting on the merit of the matter, and all rights and contentions should be left open.
In response, senior Advocate Abhishek Singhvi, appearing for the Congress, appreciated the gesture and termed it as “gracious.” He highlighted that all demand notices were issued in March and before for different years, amounting to approximately Rs 3,500 crore.
The Congress received a demand notice of Rs 1,823 crore from the IT department on March 29, with the fresh notice covering the assessment years 2017-18 to 2020-21, including penalty and interest. Reacting to the notices, Congress leader Rahul Gandhi criticized the BJP-led Centre for engaging in “tax terrorism” and warned of consequences once the government changes.
The Congress alleged that the central government aims to freeze its bank accounts, with Congress leader Jairam Ramesh revealing that the party received two more income tax notices after the demand notice.
Sources revealed that the Congress lost income tax exemption in 2018-19 due to extensive cash usage in the electoral process.
In related developments, the Delhi High Court dismissed the Congress party’s pleas against the initiation of income tax re-assessment proceedings for four years, citing similar dismissals in previous petitions challenging re-assessment proceedings.
