This story is from February 23, 2012

Kripashankar's wife faces heat as ‘abettor’ in assets case

Malti Devi Singh finds herself in the line of fire, much like her husband Kripashankar Singh.
Kripashankar's wife faces heat as ‘abettor’ in assets case
MUMBAI: Malti Devi Singh finds herself in the line of fire, much like her husband Kripashankar Singh.
The Bombay High Court has held that the case against Malti Devi is a “gross case to be charged and tried as an abettor of her husband since the figures of her income and assets as also the made-up expenses show, at least prima facie, a case of ill-gotten wealth”.
1x1 polls
The observations made in the high court’s Wednesday ruling came days after an income tax officer, who called for her income assessment details, found Malti Devi to be “evasive” and “in a denying mode without proper documentary evidence.”
The I-T assessment officer noted that Malti Devi had not filed any returns till notices were issued to her; then, too, she filed returns for 2004-05 only in May 2011. She had declared the total taxable income as nil and agricultural income of Rs 69,000. She filed returns for 2009-10 in May 2011 as well, showing only agricultural income of Rs 1.32 lakh.
The I-T assessment report on her purchase of agricultural land at Mauza Kahanpur for Rs 4.17 lakh pointed out that she had failed to explain her source of investment. Though payment for the land was made from her account, the I-T officer said Malti Devi “resorted to dubious means of explanation for disowning the source of investment”.
The high court noted that Malti Devi was shown to have agricultural land at Wada but it was not known when she purchased it nor were any revenue records produced. Malti Devi is shown to have dealings in forward commodities like gold and silver after 2007. How and why she went into such trading had to be investigated, the court said.
Malti Devi’s assets showed Rs 1.17 crore invested through forward trading, the court said, adding that “the entire amount was prima facie suspect.”
She is shown to have five plots in her native place without documentary evidence.
The high court also wondered why there was no investigation into the amounts shown to have been loaned and received from family members.
author
About the Author
Swati Deshpande

Swati Deshpande is Senior editor at The Times of India, Mumbai, where she has been covering courts for over a decade. She is passionate about law and works towards enlightening people about their statutory, legal and fundamental rights. She makes it her job to decipher for the public the truth, be it in an intricate civil dispute or in a gruesome criminal case.

End of Article
FOLLOW US ON SOCIAL MEDIA