Did Assam's ED Provisional Attach Assets Worth Rs 31.76 Crore from an Income Tax Officer and His Spouse?
Click to start listening
Synopsis
The Enforcement Directorate has attached assets worth Rs 31.76 crore belonging to Income Tax Officer Khurshed Khan and his wife, marking a significant move under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. The case highlights issues of corruption and misuse of power within public service.
Key Takeaways
- ED has attached assets worth Rs 31.76 crore.
- Action taken under Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
- Investigation initiated by CBI's report.
- Allegations of disproportionate assets against Khurshed Khan.
- Misuse of official position alleged.
New Delhi, Dec 3 (NationPress) The Enforcement Directorate (ED) from the Guwahati Zonal Office has provisionally seized movable assets estimated at Rs 31.76 crore belonging to Income Tax Officer Khurshed Khan and his wife, as per the guidelines outlined in the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002, the agency disclosed on Wednesday.
The seizure was executed under Provisional Attachment Order (PAO) No. 07/2025, issued on November 29, 2025.
The financial investigation agency commenced its probe following a First Information Report filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Anti-Corruption Branch, Guwahati, against Khan.
Previously, the CBI had presented a chargesheet on December 27, 2021, accusing him under Section 13(2) in conjunction with 13(1)(e) and 13(1)(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, for holding disproportionate assets during his term as a public official.
According to the ED, the investigation unveiled that Khan and his spouse amassed assets significantly surpassing their reported income sources from January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2019.
“The ED's investigation confirmed that Khurshed Khan and his wife possessed disproportionate assets during the review period from January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2019, consisting of deposits in bank and post office accounts,” stated the ED in its press release.
These assets have been traced to various bank and post office accounts owned by the couple.
The agency noted that the wealth was accrued through the misuse of official capacity, unexplained cash deposits, fund layering, and the creation of fictitious income sources.
The ED emphasized that the couple attempted to validate these assets by falsifying entries in personal diaries and asserting fictitious income sources.
These included alleged agricultural income, gifts from relatives, fraudulent reimbursements for departmental expenses, and even claims of income derived from garment stitching by Khan’s wife, all of which were discovered to be unproven during the investigation.
Point of View
It is crucial to address the troubling nature of corruption within public institutions. The attachment of assets from a government official not only underscores the ongoing fight against financial misconduct but also highlights the need for transparency and integrity in public service. We stand united in advocating for accountability and justice in such critical matters.
NationPress
03/12/2025
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the significance of the ED attaching assets?
The attachment of assets by the Enforcement Directorate signifies a serious investigation into potential financial misconduct and corruption, emphasizing the agency's role in enforcing the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
Who is Khurshed Khan?
Khurshed Khan is an Income Tax Officer implicated in a financial investigation concerning the accumulation of disproportionate assets during his public service.
What led to the ED's investigation?
The investigation was initiated based on a First Information Report filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation's Anti-Corruption Branch in Guwahati against Khurshed Khan.
What law is the ED using for this action?
The Enforcement Directorate is acting under the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002.
What were the findings of the ED's investigation?
The ED found that Khan and his wife owned assets significantly exceeding their known income sources and had fabricated claims to legitimize these assets.
