New Delhi, March 14: Income-tax details of former Chief Justice of India K.G. Balakrishnan's relatives will be under the Supreme Court's scanner as it hears charges that the retired judge had amassed illegal wealth while in office.

A bench headed by Justice Dipak Misra directed attorney-general Mukul Rohatgi to furnish a detailed chart on the assessments made by the income-tax department against Justice Balakrishnan and his family members.

Rohatgi argued that the former judge's relatives --- such as his brother, uncle and nephews --- were private citizens and not parties before the court, so their tax details cannot be subjected to public scrutiny to probe the charges.

But the bench said: "You file the assessment details, we will look into it."

Rohatgi then referred to the tax assessment details --- which the government is privy to --- to say: "I could not find any nexus."

His meaning was that the tax details did not suggest any link between the assets of Justice Balakrishnan and those of his relatives.

Rohatgi argued the point further, saying the relatives had challenged the income-tax department's assessments against them before the appellate forum.

He, however, said he was placing the assessment details in a sealed cover. The bench then directed him to furnish a detailed chart, explaining the assessments made against every individual separately, by the next hearing on July 12.

A public interest plea moved by an NGO, Common Cause, has sought a CBI probe into allegations that Justice Balakrishnan and his family had amassed unaccountable wealth during his tenure as Chief Justice from January 2007 to May 2010.

Last November, the Centre had told the bench that a probe into the complaint had revealed "nothing". The clean chit came six months after the former Chief Justice had retired as head of the National Human Rights Commission.

"There cannot be a CBI probe afresh as it might create certain dangerous precedents," Rohatgi had told the bench in November.

During that hearing, the Centre had admitted to "under-valuation" of some of the assets under the scanner but added that the NGO's plea was infructuous.

Justice Misra had then used a hypothetical example to make a point. "Say, a man is earning Rs 10,000 and files a return for Rs 2 lakh and purchases a property of Rs 1 crore," he had said.

"It's the duty of the income-tax department to find out whether he has submitted details. He may not be able to explain. Then it has to be seen on whose name the sale deed is, where these people got Rs 3 crore or Rs 5.6 crore. Evasion of tax will also invite tax penalty."

In other words, although the apex court did not direct the income-tax authority to proceed against Justice Balakrishnan, it maintained that the department had the powers to proceed against anyone accused of tax evasion.