Yet another effort by the family of Congress’ strongman and former finance Minister P Chidambaram to prevent the filing of a case against them came to naught on Wednesday when Justice S Baskaran of the Madras High court refused to stay the prosecution launched by the Income Tax department against Nalini Chidambaram (the lawyer wife of Chidambaram, son Karti and daughter-in-law Srinidhi) under the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act of 2015.

Justice Baskaran rejected the plea for interim orders and adjourned the cases, filed by the family to quash the prosecution, to July 5, after ordering notice to I-T officials.

It may be remembered that Justice T S Sivagnanam of the Madras High Court had last month dismissed a petition moved by Nalini, Karti and Dr Srinidhi questioning the prosecution initiated against them by the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax,Chennai under the under the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Taxes Act 2015.

The prosecution cases have been filed after it has been found by the Income Tax department that Karti, his mother and wife had purchased a property in london (5, Holben Close, Barton, Cambridge, UK). The IT Department found that the property was purchased for Rs 5.37 crore but this was not disclosed in the IT returns filed by them.

According to the petitioners, the Principal Director of Income Tax (Investigation) was not a competent officer to launch prosecution under Section 50 of the Act and, therefore, the complaint filed against them should be quashed. They also claimed that the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM) court in Egmore, Chennai, was not the designated special court under the Act.

The petitioners also contended that if any proceedings were initiated by the CMM based on the persecution complaint filed by the second respondent (Principal Director), who is incompetent to file the complaint, it would  cause prejudice to the respondents. “The petitioner does not have any undisclosed foreign asset and hence does not come within the purview of the Black Money Act,” the petitioners claimed in the identical affidavits.