It is worthwhile to point out that there was not any allegation of some concrete scam or fraud or corruption case against Jay Lalitha. This was simply a matter of 'possession of assets disproportionate to known sources of income'.   How you arrive at quantum of disproportionate assets.  every time you earn something and spend less than income, your asset increases. You also get some tax free or exempt income on which you pay no tax but assets increase. Value of assets may also increase owing to change in market prices. This happens with fixed assets more. So this is a complicated issue.  One can always argue that the increase in assets is owing to income in current year for which IT Return/ W.T. return will be filed only after close of year. This is an accounting matter. The High Court also found that Jay Lalitha had some disproportionate assets but this is less than 10%- the permissible limit and hence the allegation is not tenable in law. 

Gulshan Kumar Ajmani wrote:

It is worthwhile to point out that there was not any allegation of some concrete scam or fraud or corruption case against Jay Lalitha. This was simply a matter of 'possession of assets disproportionate to known sources of income'.   How you arrive at quantum of disproportionate assets.  every time you earn something and spend less than income, your asset increases. You also get some tax free or exempt income on which you pay no tax but assets increase. Value of assets may also increase owing to change in market prices. This happens with fixed assets more. So this is a complicated issue.  One can always argue that the increase in assets is owing to income in current year for which IT Return/ W.T. return will be filed only after close of year. This is an accounting matter. The High Court also found that Jay Lalitha had some disproportionate assets but this is less than 10%- the permissible limit and hence the allegation is not tenable in law. 

 

What vivid explanation! I could get a clear idea about some intricacies of taxation. Thank you sir

Great explanation, as honorable court says ten percentages are not enough for grounds of prosecution. More over this case was initiated by DMK 19 years back might have political motives attached with it. 

You need not have any doubts about the motive behind the case. It's a plan to frame Jayalalita .