The Madras High Court is set to hear three writ appeals by the Income Tax (I-T) department on Monday, February 9, 2026. The appeals seek to transfer the income tax files of the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) party and the DMK Charitable Trust. These files are tied to a ₹11.48 crore cash seizure made in 2019 from a premise connected to DMK’s general secretary and Water Resources Minister, Duraimurugan. The hearing is before Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G. Arul Murugan. The appeals challenge a May 9, 2025 order by Justice C. Saravanan, who had quashed the file transfer and sent the matter back to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) for fresh orders after hearing the concerned party and trust. The I-T department conducted searches on March 30 and April 1, 2019, at locations linked to Duraimurugan and his son, MP D.M. Kathir Anand. They found ₹11.48 crore in cash, neatly packed and labeled with Assembly segment and ward names. Since Duraimurugan was a permanent trustee of the DMK Charitable Trust and the party’s general secretary, the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax proposed transferring the income tax files to himself for a coordinated investigation. The Director General of Income Tax (Investigations) approved this in January 2021, and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) issued transfer orders for the DMK and trust files. The DMK and the trust immediately challenged the transfer orders through writ petitions. Notices were then sent to the trust for assessment year 2018-19 details. The trust filed a third writ petition against these notices, accusing the Assistant Commissioner Jayaraman Saravanan of acting with “malicious intent” to please the ruling party at the Centre and tarnish DMK’s image. The trust also questioned the need for a coordinated investigation and criticised the timing of the transfer just before Tamil Nadu’s 2021 Assembly elections. Senior counsel P. Wilson argued during the 2025 hearing that a similar political situation existed ahead of the 2026 elections. The I-T department contends the single judge’s order lacked valid reasons and was based on “mere conjectures and surmises.” They maintain the file transfer was an administrative step for centralised assessment within Chennai and did not require hearing the assessees. The department strongly opposed naming its officer in the petitions, saying officials perform their duties without personal bias and allegations against them lacked substance.