The main legal point established in the judgment is the analysis of the provisions of Section 50 of the BMI Act and the consideration of the petitioner's arguments regarding the disclosure of details in the Income Tax Returns and the beneficiary status of the petitioner.

JUDGMENT :

Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, J.

Crl. M.C. 1708/2022 & Crl. M.A. No. 7317/2022 (stay)

1. By way of the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner seeks quashing of complaint under Section 190 (a) read with Section 200 Cr.P.C. for offence of Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 for A.Y 2016-17) (hereinafter referred to as BMI Act) and order dated 05.08.2021 passed by learned ACMM, Special Acts, Central District, Tis Hazari and sanction order dated 12.07.2021 passed under Section 55 of BMI Act.

2. Vide a separate application CRL. M.A. 7317/2022, the petitioner seeks stay of the proceedings in Complaint Case No. 1964/2021 filed by the respondent before the learned ACMM, Special Acts, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts. Apart from relying upon the contentions raised in the present petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., it has also been mentioned that this court in W.P.(C) No. 142/2020 vide order dated 04.08.2021 as well as in LPA no. 236/2021 vide order dated 09.08.2021, permitted the petitioner to travel to USA for a Masters course in Public Administration (MPA) at the Harvard Kennedy School, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States of America (USA). It is also prayed by the counsel that in case this Court is not inclined to stay the proceedings, petitioner may be granted exemption from appearance since he is continuing his studies in USA.

3. The application for stay of proceedings pending before the learned ACMM has been vehemently opposed on behalf of respondent and time has been sought to file reply.

4. In brief, a complaint under Section 50 of the BMI Act was filed for assessment year 2016-17 against the petitioner/accused, alleging that he has not disclosed about his financial interest in the bank accounts held by him with the ‘Investec Bank’ (Channel Island) Limited” in its Jersey Branch for the ITR filed by him for the assessment year 2016-17.

5. Learned ACMM observed that a prima facie case is made out for the offence under Section 50 of the BMI Act and accordingly, after taking the cognizance, issued summons to the petitioner vide order dated 05.08.2021.

6. The case of the petitioner is that a search and seizure operation was conducted by the Income Tax Department at the residential premises of the petitioner and his family members and at the time of search proceedings, the statements of the petitioner and his family members were recorded under Section 132 (4) of the Income Tax Act in between 23.07.2019 to 27.07.2019.

7. Further, on 22.08.2019, summons were issued to petitioner under Section 131 (1A) of the Income Tax Act and in compliance of which, the petitioner duly appeared before DDIT (INV.) Unit-4(3), New Delhi and his statement was recorded under Section 138 (1) of the Income Tax Act. Thereafter on 29.01.2021, almost after 1 ½ years of the search and seizure, a show cause notice was issued to petitioner to show cause as to why statutory sanction under Section 55 of the BMI Act and Section 50 of the BMI Act should not be granted.

8. On 24.02.2021, the petitioner filed its reply to show cause notice dated 29.01.2021. It is submitted that the petitioner did not hold any interest in the said bank accounts and further clarified that he is only the discretionary beneficiary in the trust and does not have any right or interest in the company nor in the bank account of the said company. Further, as per the account opening form, the said account was opened on 25.02.2015 in financial year 2014-15 and in the said financial year, petitioner was a non-resident and was not bound to disclose the relevant column in the Income Tax Returns that were filled as per the requirement and intention reflected in aforesaid forms.

9. However, nothing was heard from the authorities after the submission of the reply. Further, the pendency of the present proceedings came to the knowledge of petitioner somewhere in September