Daijiworld Media Network - New Delhi (SR)

New Delhi, Apr 11: Madhya Pradesh chief minister Kamal Nath’s reaction, on the most recent Income Tax raid on the premises of his aides and relatives, once again states that if used with few twists and turns, 'vendetta' is an apt word to cover-up corruption, especially during election polls.

Finance minister Arun Jaitley had recently voiced his opinion over raids stating that Revenue Department acts objectively for carrying out search operations and legitimate action against corruption is not vendetta.

According to reports, more than 300 Income Tax sleuths conducted raids in 50 locations including Bhopal, Indore, Goa and 35 locations in Delhi on people considered very close to chief minister of Madhya Pradesh, Kamal Nath. Income Tax department stated that it detected widespread and well-organised racket of a collection of unaccounted cash of about Rs 281 crore during raids.

However, the opposition parties, including the Congress, have dubbed the raids as political vendetta by ignoring the seriousness of the fact that such large hidden cash and other valuables worth more than Rs 281 crore were recovered by the I-T department.

“It has become a routine practice to call any action against corruption political vendetta. Claim of vendetta has never been a legitimate defence in corruption. Those who commit such large acts of corruption have to be judged on the merits of the action itself,” Arun Jaitley recently wrote in his facebook post.

In his blog he stated that evidence has been found that in Karnataka, allocations made for public welfare to the Public Works Department were being round-tripped by engineers for a political purpose, while in Madhya Pradesh, he alleged, that an institutional mechanism has been created where money meant for development and social welfare of the weaker sections were being channeled into politics.

With regard to this, the Election Commission advised Revenue Department that any action by its enforcement agencies during election time should be ‘neutral’ and ‘non-discriminatory’ and officials of the poll panel should be kept in the loop about such actions. The Revenue Department responded by saying it understood what ‘neutrality’ meant — and that the panel should advise its own officers to curb use of illicit money and keep tax officers in the loop.