Amrapali group CMD Anil Sharma’s affidavit in the Supreme Court on alleged diversion of homebuyers’ money and financial transactions of group companies revealed how he and his family members received crores of rupees over the years as ‘salary and professional charges’ while Rs 13 crore was splurged on purchasing 86 luxury cars for the promoters and company officials.
As per the affidavit, Sharma received Rs 44 crore as salary in the last 10 years and the company also paid income tax of Rs 5.5 crore on his behalf. He also received Rs 32.4 crore from the company, which he said had been refunded. Sharma, who fought general elections in 2014 on a JD(U) ticket from Jehanabad constituency in Bihar, had declared his assets worth around Rs 847 crore in his affidavit filed before the Election Commission.
While furnishing his asset details before the apex court, Sharma said his present assets are around Rs 12 crore only out of which Rs 29 lakh are deposits in 17 bank accounts.
Directed to provide details of assets of all family members who were also involved in the management of group companies and the amount received by them, Sharma said his wife Pallavi Mishra also received Rs 4.47 crore from the group and his elder daughter received Rs 14 crore.
In their affidavits, all family members told the court that all the money received by them had been utilised for household expenses and investments and they are holding very small amounts in banks. As per the affidavits, the company had paid Rs 14 crore in income tax on behalf of promoters, directors and company officials. Sharma’s affidavit said the group spent more than Rs 1,000 crore in administration and staff welfare in the last ten years.
The SC-appointed forensic auditors had earlier told the court that home-buyers’ money was diverted for purposes other than constructing the housing projects and even directors were given crores of rupees out of the funds under the garb of professional charges. In their interim report, they said the amount received from buyers was always higher than the project cost, liability towards Noida authority for land cost and lease agreement but the company diverted the funds, which led to financial crunch causing delay in construction.