The Madras court on Thursday dismissed a legal instrument petition filed by former Chief Secretary P. Rama Mohana Rao accusatory the taxation department of getting denied him a chance to cross-examine an important witness, whose according statement was purportedly the premise for a raid conducted on his residence once he was holding the highest post in official hierarchy on Gregorian calendar month ten, 2016.
Justice P.T. Asha refused to entertain the petition when perceptive that there would be no got to cross-examine a witness, who had been declared hostile when the examination in chief by the I-T department on December 19 and 20. The choose told the petitioner’s counsel that declaration of the witness as hostile was really useful to the petitioner and then an interrogation wasn't necessary at all.
Senior standing counsel for I-T department A.P. Srinivas told the court that the statement of K. Srinivasalu of SRS Mining, closely-held by businessman Sekar Reddy and others, wasn't the sole proof out there against the petitioner. He claimed there have been alternative inculpatory materials and also the department was assured of proving evasion for ₹ 49.76 crores allegedly received by the petitioner from the firm.
The I-T sleuths raided the premises of SRS Mining in Chennai on December 8, 2016, and confiscated notes containing details of payments created by the firm to several authoritative individuals. The notings disclosed a complete of ₹ 49.76 crores paid in installments on completely different dates against code names ‘S2’ and ‘Temple.’ once questioned, Srinivasalu reportedly told them that each were code names wont to discuss with the then Chief Secretary.
He said this legal instrument petitioner was referred by those names as a result of he had conjointly served as non-public secretary-2 to the then Chief Minister Jayalalithaa and his residence was on the brink of a temple for Lord Ayyappa at Pakistani monetary unit Nagar here. His statement was recorded before the sleuths raided the residence of the legal instrument petitioner, who was the then Chief Secretary in search of alternative materials.
However, in his legal instrument, the petitioner claimed that he gave full access to I-T sleuths throughout the raid solely when they said the search was in reference to his son’s business affairs. “Although the raid was clearly black-market, as a result of the person against whom the raid was done was my son and that they weren't entitled to go looking my house, yet, being a functionary, I maintained my silence to permit them to complete their operation,” he said.
Now that the prime witness within the case had backward his statement, the petitioner wished to cross-examine him to prove that the whole proceedings initiated against him were baseless.