IT Dept flags discrepancies in Udhayanidhi’s poll affidavits, Madras HC adjourns case

Income Tax Department told the Madras High Court of inconsistencies in Udhayanidhi Stalin’s 2021 and 2026 poll affidavits, citing mismatched investments, loans, and disclosures, while noting limited verification due to incomplete records and filings

Chennai: The Income Tax Department has informed the Madras High Court about apparent inconsistencies in the election affidavits of Udhayanidhi Stalin, particularly concerning investments, loans, and financial disclosures across the 2021 and 2026 Assembly polls.

In a counter-affidavit filed before the court, the Department stated that an investment of ₹7.36 crore in Red Giant Movies, disclosed by Stalin in his 2021 affidavit, does not appear in his 2026 declaration.

---

At the same time, the latest affidavit includes an investment of ₹2.63 crore in the same company in the name of his spouse, which had not been reported earlier.

The Department pointed out that these variations, along with other inconsistencies in financial records, make it difficult to arrive at any conclusive findings at this stage.

The affidavit was submitted on behalf of the Director General of Income Tax (Investigation), Tamil Nadu and Puducherry.

Questions were also raised regarding loan disclosures. While Stalin’s 2026 affidavit mentions loans amounting to ₹10 crore, the 2021 filing had recorded liabilities of approximately ₹11.06 crore.

However, company financial statements indicate borrowings of around ₹17.69 crore. The Department noted that without access to detailed and complete records, it is not possible to reconcile these figures accurately.

Further complicating the issue, the Department observed that the Income Tax returns were filed using the ITR-2 format, which does not mandate submission of a balance sheet.

As a result, independent verification of investments and liabilities remains limited. The affidavit also highlighted gaps in documentation, including the absence of audited financial statements for certain entities.

Additionally, it noted that Stalin’s spouse had not filed Income Tax returns for the relevant assessment year, restricting scrutiny of related financial entries.

The court was hearing a petition filed by Chennai-based voter R. Kumaravel from the Chepauk–Thiruvallikeni constituency, who has sought a detailed probe into alleged discrepancies in Stalin’s asset declarations.

The plea cites “material inconsistencies” between affidavits and corporate records, including the disappearance of declared assets and unexplained variations in liabilities.

Earlier, on April 15, the High Court had issued notice to the Income Tax Department seeking its response. The matter has now been adjourned for four weeks.