IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
DEBANGSU BASAK, J.
Shrivardhan Mohta - Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Ors. - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 568 of 2018
Decided On : 14-02-2019
Black Money - Taxation - Income Tax Act, 1961, Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 - Section 153A, Section 142(a), Section 154, Section 271(1)(b), Section 271(1)(c), Section 139(1), Section 153A, Section 50, Section 51, Section 59, Section 71 - The court discussed the applicability of the provisions of the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 in relation to the petitioner's failure to disclose foreign assets under the Income Tax Act, 1961. It interpreted the retrospective nature of the Act of 2015, the petitioner's opportunities to make disclosures, and the invocation of penal provisions. The court also considered the issue of mens rea and double jeopardy in the context of the petitioner's prosecution under the Act of 2015.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought a declaration that the provisions of the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 must be applied prospectively from April 1, 2016. The petitioner was found to have foreign bank accounts during a search and seizure by the Income Tax Authorities and was subsequently subject to assessment proceedings and penalty notices under the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Act of 2015 came into effect during the pendency of the assessment proceedings, and the authorities granted a sanction to prosecute the petitioner under the Act of 2015.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Act of 2015 could be applied to the petitioner's failure to disclose foreign assets, as the failure occurred after the Act of 2015 came into effect. It held that the petitioner had opportunities to make disclosures under the Act of 1961 and the Settlement Commission, but failed to do so. The court dismissed the writ petition, finding no merit in the petitioner's arguments.
Issues: The issues involved the retrospective application of the Act of 2015, the petitioner's failure to disclose foreign assets, the invocation of penal provisions, the requirement of mens rea, and the possibility of double jeopardy.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Act of 2015 could be applied to the petitioner's failure to disclose foreign assets, as the failure occurred after the Act of 2015 came into effect. It also emphasized the petitioner's missed opportunities to make disclosures under the Act of 1961 and the Settlement Commission. The court declined to enter into the issue of mens rea, stating that it could be decided in the criminal proceeding itself. It also rejected the petitioner's argument of double jeopardy, as the offences under the Act of 2015 were different from those under the Act of 1961.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and no costs were imposed on the petitioner.
DEBANGSU BASAK, J.
1. The petitioner has sought a declaration that, the provisions of Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 must be applied prospectively with effect from April 1, 2016. The petitioner has also sought quashing of notices dated June 13, 2018, September 6, 2018 and the sanction for prosecution dated September 17, 2018.
2. Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that, the petitioner is an assessee under the Income Tax Act, 1961. A search and seizure was carried out by the Income Tax Authorities at the residence of the petitioner on March 7, 2018. During such search and seizure, foreign bank accounts, held by the petitioner with HSBC Bank (Foreign Assets), were found. The petitioner explained such bank accounts as belonging to the deceased mother of the petitioner and that, the petitioner received such bank accounts as a part of his inheritance. A notice under Section 153A of the Act of 1961 was issued upon the petitioner. The petitioner was called upon to furnish return of income for the assessment years 2009-10 to 2015-16 within 30 days of receipt of such notice. The petitioner duly filed return for such assessment years. A notice under Section 142(a) of the Act of 1961 was received by the petitioner. During the pendency of the assessment proceedings, the petitioner approached the Settlement Commission for the assessment years 2009-10 to 2015-16. Such settlement proceedings did not result in a settlement. The Settlement Commission declared the application of the petitioner as invalid. Thereafter, the petitioner made an application under Section 154 of the Act of 1961 for rectification of the order of the Settlement Commission which was rejected. The Assessing Officer proceeded to complete the assessment for the years 2009-10 to 2015-16 under Section 153A read with Section 143(3) of the Act of 1961. The foreign bank accounts and the amount lying thereat were taken into consideration by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer raised demands after giving credit to the payments made by the petitioner during the settlement proceedings. The authorities initiated proceedings under Section 271(1)(b) and 271(1)(c) of the Act of 1961 for penalty. The order of the Assessing Officer was challenged by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority.
3. During the pendency of the assessment proceedings, the Act of 2015 came into effect. Since proceedings under the Act of 1961 were pending, the petitioner could not avail of the opportunity to make a voluntary disclosure under the Act of 2015. The petitioner received show cause notices under the Act of 2015 to which the petitioner replied. Ultimately, the authorities purporting to exercise jurisdiction under the Act of 2015 granted a sanction to prosecute the petitioner.
4. Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that, the Act of 2015 is prospective in nature. Any fiscal statute is prospective in nature. Moreover, given the nature of the Act of 2015 so far as it allows the delinquent to make a declaration within the time period specified under the Act of 2015 and since, the petitioner was debarred by statute in availing of such window of opportunity, the penal provisions of the Act of 2015 should not be applied against the petitioner. Learned Advocate for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to the show-cause notice dated March 13, 2018 and submitted that, the show-cause notice was for launching prosecution under Section 50 and 51 of the Act of 2015, since the petitioner failed to make a disclosure under Section 59 of the Act of 2015. Section 71 of the Act of 2015 prevented the petitioner from making any disclosure under the Act of 2015 as at the material point of time a proceeding under Section 153A of the Act of 1961 was pending.
5. She has submitted that, since, the petitioner was precluded statutorily from filing a declaration under the Act of 2015, therefore, there w
Commissioner of Income-tax (Central) Calcutta Vs. Anwar Ali
Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Amritsar Vs. Suresh Seth
M/s. Gujarat Travancore Agency, Cochin Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kerala, Ernakulam
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.