The Delhi High Court has held that the money allegedly received by three former Jharkhand Mukti Morcha MPs and party chief Shibu Soren for voting in favour of the P V Narasimha Rao government in 1993 is liable to be taxed.

A bench of justices Sanjiv Khanna and V Kameswar Rao which has set aside the decision of the income tax appellate tribunal (ITAT) holding that the money received by the JMM MPs is not liable to be taxed. The court pronounced the verdict on an appeal of the Income Tax department which challenged the tribunal's order saying that the amount paid to Soren and three others -- Suraj Mandal, Simon Marandi and Shailendra Mahto -- was bribe money which was "undisclosed income" and thus taxable.

The former MPs during their trial under the Prevention of Corruption Act had admitted that they had received money from Congress in 1993 for their support to the confidence motion. However, they were acquitted of the charge of accepting bribe after a Supreme Court verdict which held that the MPs' action enjoyed immunity under Article 105 of the Constitution.

Article 105 deals with powers and privileges of the Houses of Parliament and its members and provides that no MP shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him in Parliament or any committee there of.

The politicians approached the ITAT, Delhi against the order of the appellate commissioner of Income Tax on the assessment order of 1997 passed by assessment officer (AO) that they were liable to pay tax on the money they received. The ITAT had held in favour of the politicians saying "the additions made did not represent undisclosed income and should not have been made in the block assessment orders".

In its judgement on the IT department appeal, filed through advocate Rohit Madan, the high court said it had to decide two questions -- whether ITAT fell into error in holding the amount is not undisclosed income and also whether the tribunal erred in setting aside the findings of lower authorities that the amounts deposited by the assessees with the bank were not taxable as income. The high court answered both the questions in favour of the IT department saying, "We answer the substantial questions of law mentioned in the first paragraph of this judgment in favour of the Revenue and against the respondent-assessee."