Investigation against MP Navas Kani has begun, Income Tax Dept. tells Madras High Court

Income Tax Department begins investigation against MP K. Navas Kani for alleged income misrepresentation and unlawful enrichment.

The Income Tax (I-T) Department on Wednesday (March 18, 2026) told the Madras High Court that it has already commenced an independent investigation with respect to complaints of alleged suppression of income, misrepresentation, and unlawful enrichment by Ramanathapuram Member of Parliament (MP) K. Navas Kani of the Indian Union Muslim League (IUML).

Appearing before the first Division Bench of Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan, Additional Solicitor General AR.L. Sundaresan, assisted by I-T Department senior standing counsel A.P. Srinivas, said, the department had summoned the MP and that he had appeared before them in order to explain his stand on the matter.

“The second respondent (MP) has submitted certain documents in his defence and has sought time to submit further documents. We will continue with the investigation and take action in accordance with the law. This writ petition can be closed by recording my submissions,” the ASG told the Bench during the hearing of a case seeking a direction to the I-T Department to inquire into the issue.

However, since the court had, during previous hearings, insisted upon filing of a counter affidavit by the MP, too, to the present writ petition filed by Tirunelveli-based advocate K. Venkatachalapathy, the Division Bench directed the counsel for the legislator to file his counter affidavit by March 26, 2026. The judges said, the counter may help the I-T Department in its investigation.

In an affidavit filed through his counsel V.R. Shanmuganathan, the writ petitioner had stated that Mr. Kani had served as an MP representing the Ramanathapuram constituency between 2019 and 2024 and got elected again from the same constituency in 2024.

Comparing the assets and liabilities disclosed by him in an affidavit filed along with the nomination forms in 2019 and 2024, the petitioner claimed that there were several discrepancies and that the assets of the MP, as well as his family members, had increased manifold during his first term.