CBI listed seven points to show why there was difference in the figures of disproportionate assets from 2007 and 2013, claiming large advances were earlier shown as assets as well as expenditure, leading to double accounting.
“The same stands corrected now,” the CBI said. A number of heavy advances, despite being refunded subsequently, were earlier taken as assets.
“These refunds stand corroborated from the bank account statements.
“Earlier these advances were shown as assets on the basis of their reflection in a particular Income Tax returns, even though such amounts were not be found in subsequent returns,” the CBI said.
The third point, CBI reasoned that the gifts received by the Yadav family, which had been accounted as Income tax, “have now been validated by examining the donors, donees, bank statements, Income Tax returns and personal ledgers”.
The CBI also said a large number of expenditure items have been found to be refund of loans taken during the check period of April one, 1994 to March 21, 2004.
