Expressing strong disapproval of the quiet burial given to cases of huge income tax demands against Railway Minister Laloo Prasad Yadav and his wife Rabri Devi, the Supreme Court on Tuesday sought to know how a tribunal ‘‘hurriedly’’ dismissed the cases and how a law officer of the Centre had opined that no appeal should be filed.A three-judge Bench comprising Justices N Variava, A R Lakshmanan and S H Kapadia sought to know how a Special Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in Patna decided — within 10 days of the UPA Government assuming charge at the Centre — in favour of Laloo Prasad and his wife.The order came on a PIL by BJP MP Sushil Kumar Modi and JD(U) MP Rajiv Ranjan Singh ‘Lallan’ alleging that the RJD president manipulated the system and interfered with the course of justice in the fodder scam cases, disproportionate assets cases and the IT cases pending against him and Rabri Devi.Surprised by the volume of cases decided by the ITAT’s Special Bench, the court asked Solicitor-General G E Vahanvati to give details of the orders passed by the tribunal between June 21 and July 2 last year. The Bench said questions remain as to how the ITAT could dispose of 24 IT cases against Laloo Prasad and his wife in a 136-page judgement in addition to disposing of 111 cases in a short span of 10 days.On the ITAT’s acceptance of the voluntary returns filed by Laloo Prasad, the court asked how such a return could be treated as ‘‘full and final’’ disclosure of his income for the assessment years 1986-1996.It also asked the Central Board for Direct Taxes (CBDT) to explain what has it done for the assessment years after 1996-97 against Laloo.The court was informed by the petitioners that Laloo and his wife had challenged the sanction for their prosecution in the disproportionate assets case before the Patna High Court long back but the petition remained undecided as bench after bench were refusing to hear it.Taking note of the allegations, the apex court asked the Patna High Court to constitute a bench headed by Justice Aftab Ahmed to decide the appeal ‘‘as soon as possible and not later then 30 days from today’’.
