An election watchdog has pointed out discrepancies in the income tax details submitted by the <a href="https://www.google.com/url?client=internal-uds-cse&amp;cx=006054055338965708568:09spwrlibei&amp;q=https://www.wionews.com/india-general-elections-2019/prakash-raj-to-campaign-for-aap-in-delhi-says-people-should-come-together-to-reclaim-the-republic-215873&amp;sa=U&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjfzp-84oviAhVKqY8KHfTcDrc4ChAWMAF6BAgPEAI&amp;usg=AOvVaw0RJiYolyGJDgyFUATA7Tqw">Aam Aadmi Party</a> (AAP) and Congress candidates in their nominations for the Panaji Assembly bypoll in Goa.

In a release issued on Tuesday, the Association of Democratic Reforms (ADR)said the affidavits filed by AAP nominee Valmiki Naik for the 2017 state Assembly elections and the upcoming bypoll show a difference of over Rs 1 lakh in his I-T returns for the financial year 2015-16.

In his affidavit for the Panaji bypoll, Naik has shown his I-T returns as Rs 3,91,341 for 2015-16, while in his 2017 submission, he mentioned a figure of Rs 2,89,810 for the same period, the ADR said.

It also pointed out that Congress candidate Atanasio Monserratte in his affidavit for the upcoming bypoll has mentioned his I-T returns for 2015-16 as Rs 24,50,076, which is Rs 34,746 less than the Rs 24,84,822 figure submitted by him in his 2017 Assembly election affidavit.

While comparing his 2017 and 2019 affidavits, though Monserratte's net worth went down by about Rs 9 crore in last two years, he declared Rs 1,69,84,756 as his I-T returns for 2017-18 and Rs 33,33,822 cash in hand each (self and spouse) on the date of filing nomination on April 29, the ADR said.

When contacted, North Goa's district election officer R Menaka said she will look into the matter. Naik and Monserratte could not be contacted for their response to ADR's findings.

In the 2017 Assembly polls, BJP leader Siddharth Kunkolienkar won the Panaji seat located in North Goa district, while Monserratte, who then contested as an Independent, stood second, and Naik came third.

Kunkolienkar vacated the seat later that year to allow then chief minister Manohar Parrikar to contest and enter the 40-member Goa Assembly. The Panaji Assembly bypoll was necessitated due to the death of sitting MLA Parrikar on March 17.

The BJP has nominated Kunkolienkar to take on Monserrate, who is now contesting on Congress' ticket, and Naik in the bypoll to be held May 19.&nbsp;

An election watchdog has pointed out discrepancies in the income tax details submitted by the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) and Congress candidates in their nominations for the Panaji Assembly bypoll in Goa.

An election watchdog has pointed out discrepancies in the income tax details submitted by the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) and Congress candidates in their nominations for the Panaji Assembly bypoll in Goa. In a release issued on Tuesday, the Association of Democratic Reforms (ADR)said the affidavits filed by AAP nominee Valmiki Naik for the 2017 state Assembly elections and the upcoming bypoll show a difference of over Rs 1 lakh in his I-T returns for the financial year 2015-16. In his affidavit for the Panaji bypoll, Naik has shown his I-T returns as Rs 3,91,341 for 2015-16, while in his 2017 submission, he mentioned a figure of Rs 2,89,810 for the same period, the ADR said. It also pointed out that Congress candidate Atanasio Monserratte in his affidavit for the upcoming bypoll has mentioned his I-T returns for 2015-16 as Rs 24,50,076, which is Rs 34,746 less than the Rs 24,84,822 figure submitted by him in his 2017 Assembly election affidavit. While comparing his 2017 and 2019 affidavits, though Monserratte's net worth went down by about Rs 9 crore in last two years, he declared Rs 1,69,84,756 as his I-T returns for 2017-18 and Rs 33,33,822 cash in hand each (self and spouse) on the date of filing nomination on April 29, the ADR said. When contacted, North Goa's district election officer R Menaka said she will look into the matter. Naik and Monserratte could not be contacted for their response to ADR's findings. In the 2017 Assembly polls, BJP leader Siddharth Kunkolienkar won the Panaji seat located in North Goa district, while Monserratte, who then contested as an Independent, stood second, and Naik came third. Kunkolienkar vacated the seat later that year to allow then chief minister Manohar Parrikar to contest and enter the 40-member Goa Assembly. The Panaji Assembly bypoll was necessitated due to the death of sitting MLA Parrikar on March 17. The BJP has nominated Kunkolienkar to take on Monserrate, who is now contesting on Congress' ticket, and Naik in the bypoll to be held May 19.

Association of Democratic Reform finds discrepancies in affidavits of AAP, Congress candidates

The Supreme Court of India on Thursday reserved its verdict on petitions challenging the legality of electoral bonds. The bench, headed by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi, will pronounce its judgment on Friday.

Tomorrow's order, however, will be interim and not the final one on the constitutionality of electoral bonds.

The Centre and the Election Commission have taken contrary stands in the court over political funding with the government wanting to maintain anonymity of the donors of electoral bonds and poll panel batting for revealing the names of donors for transparency.

The court is hearing the plea of NGO Association of Democratic Reforms opposing the use of electoral bonds for political funding. The petitioner has sought interim reliefs that either the issuance of electoral bonds be stayed or the names of the donors be made public to ensure transparency in the poll process.

Appearing for the NGO, Advocate Prashant Bhushan told the top court that electoral bonds were promoting undisclosed (anonymous) source of funds to political parties, thereby destroying the fabric of free and fair elections in India.

Attorney General KK Venugopal, appearing for the Centre, countered by saying, "This is the best scheme possible to combat the vice of black money in elections. I hope the court upholds it."

Meanwhile, the Election Commission told the top court that it was not against electoral bonds but the anonymity factor. "We are opposed to anonymity and we want transparency with full disclosure. We are concerned with the amendments brought to the Representation of the Peoples Act. Political parties should put it (info on donations) on their websites so people get to know," the commission said.

However, the Attorney General defended the government's stand by saying that the law was passed to eliminate black money and that the "secrecy of funding is necessary to ensure that those who fund the political parties are not victimised if the party which they did not fund comes to power".

Electoral bonds were introduced by amendments made through the Finance Act 2017 to the Reserve Bank of India Act 1934, Representation of Peoples Act 1951, Income Tax Act 1962 and Companies Act. In January last year, Modi government notified the scheme for electoral bonds, which are in nature of bearer instruments like a promissory note capable of being purchased by an Indian citizen or a body based in India. These electoral bonds can be purchased from an authorised bank and can be issued to a political party. The political party can encash the bond within 15 days.

The most important issue regarding the electoral bonds is that the identity of the donor is known only to the bank, which is any case is kept anonymous.

The Supreme Court of India on Thursday reserved its verdict on petitions challenging the legality of electoral bonds. The bench, headed by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi, will pronounce its judgment on Friday.

The Supreme Court of India on Thursday reserved its verdict on petitions challenging the legality of electoral bonds. The bench, headed by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi, will pronounce its judgment on Friday. Tomorrow's order, however, will be interim and not the final one on the constitutionality of electoral bonds. The Centre and the Election Commission have taken contrary stands in the court over political funding with the government wanting to maintain anonymity of the donors of electoral bonds and poll panel batting for revealing the names of donors for transparency. The court is hearing the plea of NGO Association of Democratic Reforms opposing the use of electoral bonds for political funding. The petitioner has sought interim reliefs that either the issuance of electoral bonds be stayed or the names of the donors be made public to ensure transparency in the poll process. Appearing for the NGO, Advocate Prashant Bhushan told the top court that electoral bonds were promoting undisclosed (anonymous) source of funds to political parties, thereby destroying the fabric of free and fair elections in India. Attorney General KK Venugopal, appearing for the Centre, countered by saying, "This is the best scheme possible to combat the vice of black money in elections. I hope the court upholds it." Meanwhile, the Election Commission told the top court that it was not against electoral bonds but the anonymity factor. "We are opposed to anonymity and we want transparency with full disclosure. We are concerned with the amendments brought to the Representation of the Peoples Act. Political parties should put it (info on donations) on their websites so people get to know," the commission said. However, the Attorney General defended the government's stand by saying that the law was passed to eliminate black money and that the "secrecy of funding is necessary to ensure that those who fund the political parties are not victimised if the party which they did not fund comes to power". Electoral bonds were introduced by amendments made through the Finance Act 2017 to the Reserve Bank of India Act 1934, Representation of Peoples Act 1951, Income Tax Act 1962 and Companies Act. In January last year, Modi government notified the scheme for electoral bonds, which are in nature of bearer instruments like a promissory note capable of being purchased by an Indian citizen or a body based in India. These electoral bonds can be purchased from an authorised bank and can be issued to a political party. The political party can encash the bond within 15 days. The most important issue regarding the electoral bonds is that the identity of the donor is known only to the bank, which is any case is kept anonymous.

Should names of donors using electoral bonds be made public? Supreme Court to decide tomorrow

association-of-democratic-reforms

Association Of Democratic Reforms, News on Association Of Democratic Reforms, stories on Association Of Democratic Reforms, articles on Association Of Democratic Reforms, Association Of Democratic Reforms stories at Wion, Association Of Democratic Reforms news, Association Of Democratic Reforms latest news

association of-democratic-reforms

Association of Democratic Reform finds discrepancies in affidavits of AAP, Congress candidates

Should names of donors using electoral bonds be made public? Supreme Court to decide tomorrow