BJP claims Rahul Gandhi's assets rose from Rs 55 lakh in 2004 to Rs 9 crore in 2014, questions source of income

In a fresh offensive against Rahul Gandhi, the BJP on Sunday cited the rise in Congress president’s income between 2004 and 2014 to question its source, claiming he had no ostensible source of income.

Addressing a press conference, BJP national spokesperson Sambit Patra claimed that Rahul’s income had risen from over Rs 55 lakh in 2004 to Rs 9 crore in 2014 as per his election affidavits, asking how an MP’s assets can witness such a jump.  

Patra further claimed that Rahul and his sister had a 4.69-acre farmhouse in Delhi that was rented out to a firm, Financial Technologies (India) Limited, that had been issued show-cause notice for violations pertaining to National Spot Exchange promoted by it.

“The Congress government had on July 5, 2007 exempted this company (FTIL) from ‘Forward Contracts Regulation Act’,” he said.

He further claimed the Indira Farm House in Delhi’s Mehrauli, whose price has been mentioned by Rahul Gandhi in election affidavit as Rs 9 lakh, is actually worth crores.

On Saturday, Union minister Ravi Shankar Prasad had also made similar accusations against Rahul Gandhi.

"In his election affidavit in 2004, his income was Rs 55,38,123 while in 2009, it rose to Rs 2 crore and in 2014 it rose to Rs 9 crore. We know how much an MP earns. We want to ask what is this Rahul Gandhi model of development without an ostensible source of income," he had said.

Referring to Gandhi's brother-in-law Robert Vadra, Prasad said, "Till now, we had seen the Vadra model of development under which you invest Rs 6-7 lakh and earn Rs 700-800 crore in two-three years. Now we have come across the Rahul Gandhi model of development."

He also questioned Gandhi whether he had bought two properties of Rs 1.44 crore and Rs 5.36 crore from Unitech which was linked to the 2G spectrum allocation scam.

"The maximum trial in the case happened before we came to power. I had said the 2G judgement was legally unsound and morally improper. One judge had commented, 'I had been waiting for evidence for seven-eight years'. Is the wait for evidence and the property purchase linked? The matter is under appeal and we have asked for expeditious hearing," he alleged.