Congress did not form SIT as it would have indicted own leaders: BJP on charges against Chidambaram family
BJP president Amit Shah led his party's nationwide attack on the Congress and cited the four charge sheets filed by the Income Tax department against Chidambaram's family members.
NEW DELHI: The BJP today mounted an attack on the Congress on corruption after charge sheets were filed against family members of former Union Minister P Chidambaram and said the party had not acted on a Supreme Court order for setting up a Special Investigation Team as it would have indicted its own leaders.
BJP president Amit Shah led his party's nationwide attack on the Congress and cited the four charge sheets filed by the Income Tax department against Chidambaram's family members to allege they had illegal assets worth 3 billion dollars, a claim dismissed by Chidambaram as a dream of the chief of "India's richest political party".
"This explains why despite Supreme Court's orders Sonia Gandhi, former PM Dr Manmohan Singh & then FM P Chidambaram dragged their feet on formation of SIT, one of the first decisions taken by Modi govt, to fight black money! How could they indict their own selves," Shah tweeted.
Chidambaram retorted to Shah's charge in a tweet, urging the BJP to bring back black money stashed abroad -- as promised by the party before the 2014 Lok Sabha polls.
"The president of the richest political party in India is dreaming of billions of dollars! Bring the money back and put Rs 15 lakh in the account of every Indian as you promised," he said.
The BJP also directed its leaders across the country, including chief ministers, to target the Congress over the issue and fielded Defence Minister Nirmala Sitharaman in the national capital to attack the rival party.
She described the charge sheets against Chidambaram's family members as the 'Nawaz Sharif moment' of the Congress, a reference to Pakistan Supreme Court's decision disqualifying its former prime minister from holding office because of non-disclosure of assets and income earned abroad.
"The parallels cannot be missed out in this case. I am wondering if for Congress party in India, we are seeing the Nawaz Sharif moment," she told reporters here.
Chidambaram mocked her with a tongue-in-cheek tweet.
"The buzz in Delhi is that Ms Nirmala Sitaraman will be removed as Defence Minister and appointed as lawyer of the Income-tax department. Welcome to the bar, Ms Sitaraman (sic)," he said.
The Income Tax department on May 11 filed charge sheets against Chidambaram's wife Nalini, son Karti, daughter-in-law Srinidhi and a firm under the Black Money Act for allegedly not disclosing their foreign assets.
Sitharaman asked if Congress president Rahul Gandhi would investigate the issue involving his party's senior leader.
"The Congress party president, incidentally who is also out on bail on some financial transactions which are questionable, should certainly comment and tell the entire party and people of India whether he is going to investigate this," she said.
She pointed out that the Pakistan court had disqualified Sharif from holding office because of not disclosing assets held in foreign countries.
Sitharaman said the law on black money was brought in by the Modi government because it had pledged before the last Lok Sabha elections to fight unaccounted for money held in India and abroad.
The charge sheets or prosecution complaints have been filed by the IT department before a special court in Chennai under Section 50 of the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015, officials said.
Nalini Chidambaram, Karti and Srinidhi and a firm linked to Karti have been accused of not disclosing, either partly or fully, immovable assets such as one at Barton, Cambridge, UK, worth Rs 5.37 crore, property worth Rs 80 lakh in the same country and assets worth Rs 3.28 crore in the US.
The former finance minister's family members had said the Income Tax Department charge sheets against them under the black money law were "baseless allegations" as the overseas investments under question had been reflected in their IT returns.