The central legal point established is the requirement for valid grounds and periodic review of Look Out Circulars (LOCs) as per the Office Memorandum, and the absence of prosecution under the relevant acts influencing the court's decision.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J.(Oral)

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. At the outset, Ld. counsel for the Respondent-Income Tax department submits that on the last date, the counter affidavit was on record and that he had instructions in the matter. The presence of the Income Tax official is accordingly exempted.

3. The present petition has been filed by Mr. Manoj Vasudev Pardasany seeking quashing of the Look Out Circular ('LOC') issued against him. The Respondents in the present case are the Principal Director of Income Tax (Inv.)-1, Income Tax Department and other concerned authorities of the Union of India i.e., the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Secretary, Ministry of Home and the Foreigners Regional Registration Officer.

4. The brief facts in this case are that a search and seizure operation was conducted by the Income Tax department on 1st November, 2019 against the Petitioner. Thereafter, a LOC is stated to have been issued qua the Petitioner. After the search and seizure was conducted, proceedings were initiated against the Petitioner both under the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 (hereinafter 'Black Money, Act') and the Income Tax Act (hereinafter 'IT, Act').

5. It is not disputed that as on date, the money demanded under the Black Money, Act, as per demand order/notice dated 8th June 2022, after notice was issued under Section 10 of the Black Money, Act, to the tune of Rs.7,99,300/- has been deposited by the Petitioner vide challan serial no.22942 dated 9th June 2022.

6. Insofar as the Income Tax department is concerned, initially summons were issued to the Petitioner. The Petitioner has complied with the said summons and his statement also stands recorded by the IT Department. The LOC, however, continued to be operational. Post the proceedings which were conducted qua the Petitioner, assessment orders were passed for the AYs 2014-15 to 2020-21. A total demand of Rs.9,21,82,365/- is stated to have been raised against the Petitioner. Further, it is stated that the assessment orders have been challenged by the Petitioner before the CIT (Appeals) for AY 2019 -20 and 2020-21.

7. The submission of Mr. Handoo, ld. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner is that in the appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for AY 2019-20 and 2020-21, the Petitioner has paid 20% of the demand. The same is in terms of the Memorandum issued by the CBDT, where, if the assessee is in appeal before the CIT(Appeals), the assessing officer shall grant stay of demand till disposal of appeal upon payment of 20% of the demand. It is stated that 20% of the demand of Rs. 9,21,30,796/- for AY 2019-20 and AY 2020-21 which comes to Rs. 1,84,26,159/- ( Rs.1,33,36,159/- vide challans dated 24th June 2022 bearing challan serial nos. 13318 & 14635 and the balance Rs. 50,90,000/- adjusted towards cash seized during the search) has been deposited. Thus, it is submitted that there is a stay of the demand. The matter is now pending adjudication with the CIT (Appeals).

8. It is further submitted that the Petitioner has repeatedly requested for withdrawal of the LOC. However, the said LOC continues to operate against the Petitioner in terms of the Office Memorandum dated 27th October, 2010 read with the 22nd February, 2021. The said Office memorandum, provides in clause (J), that the LOC would continue to remain in force unless a deletion request is received.

9. In the present petition, notice was issued on 5th August, 2022. Counter affidavit has been filed by the Income Tax Department as the stand of the Union Of India is that the LOC has been issued only at the instance of the Income Tax department. Vide order dated 5th August, 2022, the Petitioner was permitted to travel to London subject to conditions. Thereafter, the matter has been taken up for hearing before this Court.

10. Mr. Handoo, ld. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that in the present case, ther