With growing concerns over the misuse of public funds and possible irregularities in contracts, the Andhra Pradesh government has embarked on a determined effort to combat corruption allegations linked to former chief minister Chandrababu Naidu in two high-profile scams — IT scam and the Skill Development Corporation scam.
The AP Crime Investigation Department (APCID) has issued notices to key figures associated with the IT scam, such as Manoj Vasudev Pardasanny and Yogesh Gupta, who played a substantial role in rerouting Rs. 371 crore meant for Skill Development Corporation over three months. The CID’s primary objective is to unearth any potential connections between the individuals involved in these scams, shedding light on the extent of the alleged corruption.
Dubai connection
Direct allegations of financial irregularities have also surfaced against Chandrababu Naidu’s PA, Srinivas, who is suspected of receiving money in connection with both scams. Moreover, there are accusations of funds reaching Chandrababu Naidu in Dubai, prompting consideration of an inquiry into this aspect. Plans are in motion to send an investigative team to Dubai shortly to follow up on leads and collect evidence.
I-T notices over ‘unexplained income’
Meanwhile, the Income Tax department has issued show-cause notices to Manoj Vasudev Pardasany, a representative of Shapoorji Pallonji Company limited (SPCL) and L&T, who is accused of having organised ‘paybacks’ from infrastructure contractors during Chandrababu Naidu’s tenure as chief minister of Andhra Pradesh.
The notices have also been issued against Chandrababu Naidu for categorising the substantial cash received as ‘unexplained income’ for the assessment year 2020-21. The total amount involved, an astounding Rs. 167,17,79,324, has piqued significant public interest, warranting further investigation and media attention.
Naidu, however, argued that the notices issued by the Income Tax authorities were invalid as they were not issued by the jurisdictional assessing officer. He also claimed that not all seized materials were provided for his defence. He disputes that the seized material does not mention his name or undisclosed income/assets.
