IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S. Manikumar, Subramoniam Prasad, JJ.
Srinidhi Karti Chidambaram - Appellant
Versus
Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax - Respondent
W.A. Nos. 1125 to 1128, 1130 & 1131 of 2018, W.P.Nos.13005 to 13007, 13008 to 13010, 13070 to 13072, 13041 to 13043, 11714, 11715 & 22329 to 22331 & 22333 of 2018 & Rev.Appl. Nos. 79 to 82 of 2018
Decided On : 02-11-2018
Black Money and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 - Section 50 - Constitution of India - Article 14 and 21 - Quash same as without jurisdiction - Declaring that Principal Director of Income Tax – Jurisdiction - Issuance of a declaration declaring that Section 50 of Block Money and Imposition of Tax Act, 2016 is null and void unless true scope and meaning of provisions of Chapter V of Block Money and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 is construed that a prosecution may be sanctioned and a prosecution may be instituted under provisions of said Chapter V only if and after Assessing Officer concerned has passed an order under Section 10(3) of Act holding that assessed has undisclosed foreign income and /or asset and has determined sum payable by assesses – Held, Respondents in their counter affidavit have contended that as per section 2(16) of Income-tax Act, 1961 word Commissioner has been defined inter-alia to include a person appointed as Principal Director of Income-tax and since Commissioner is also one of competent authority for according sanction under section 55 of Black Money Act, same covers Principal Director of Income-tax also - Except Senior Counsel for petitioners no serious contentions on above aspect were made - Respondents have explained competence of Principal Director of Income Tax and other authorities under Income Tax Act, 1961 to accord sanction for prosecution and going through provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961 court do not accept contention of petitioners that Principal Director of Income Tax is not an authority jurisdiction/competence under Section 55 of Black Money and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 to sanction prosecution or file a prosecution complaint for offences under Section 50 of Black Money and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 - He further submitted that prosecution if any launched by Department of Income Tax cannot be said to be faulty and that Court has no power to proceed further - He further added that if there is no notification it cannot be understood that no prosecution can ever be lodged under Black Money and Imposition of Tax Act – Petition closed
JUDGMENT :
S. Manikumar, J.
Since, the issues involved in these Batch of cases, comprising of Writ Appeals, Writ Petitions and Review Applications are interconnected and interrelated, they were heard together and are being disposed of, by means of this Common Judgement.
2. Challenge in these batch of cases are as follows:
(A) WRIT APPEALS:
(i) W.A.Nos.1125 to 1128, 1130 and 1130 and 1131 of 2018, have been filed under Clause 15 of Letter Patents, against the common order dated 12.04.2018, made in W.P.Nos.8832 to 8835, 8840 and 8841 of 2018.
(B) WRIT PETITIONS, QUESTIONING THE COMPETENCE OF THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TAMIL NADU AND PUDUCHERRY) TO SANCTION PROSECUTION TO FILE THE COMPLAINT AGAINST THE WRIT PETITIONERS:
(ii) W.P.Nos.13005 and 13071 of 2018 are for issuance of declaration, declaring that the Principal Director of Income Tax (Investigation), Chennai, 2nd respondent is not an authority having jurisdiction/competence under section 55 Block Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015, to sanction prosecution or file a prosecution compliant for offences under Section 50 of the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 against the petitioners.
(C) WRIT PETITIONS, TO DECLARE SECTIONS 48 AND 50 OF THE BLACK MONEY ACT, AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA:
(iii) W.P.Nos.13006, 13008, 13009, 13041, 13042 and 13070 of 2018 are for issuance of declaration, declaring that Sections 48 and 50 of the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 are arbitrary, violative of Article 14 and 21 of Constitution of India, unless the true scope and meaning of the provisions of Chapter V of the Black money (undisclosed Foreign Income & Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 are construed/interpreted to mean that a prosecution may be sanctioned and a prosecution complaint can be filed before the Jurisdictional Magistrate under the provisions of the said Chapter V only if and after the Assessing Officer concerned has passed an order under Section 10(3) of the Act holding that the assesse has undisclosed asset located outside India.
(iv) W.P.No.11714 of 2018 is for issuance of a declaration, declaring that Section 50 of the Block Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income & Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2016 is null and void unless the true scope and meaning of the provisions of Chapter V of the Block Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income & Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 is construed that a prosecution may be sanctioned and a prosecution may be instituted under the provisions of the said Chapter V only if and after the Assessing Officer concerned has passed an order under Section 10(3) of the Act holding that the assessee has undisclosed foreign income and /or asset and has determined the sum payable by the assesses (subject to Appeal and further Appeals as provided in Chapter-II of the Act).
(D) WRIT PETITIONS, TO DECLARE CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, IS NOT THE DESIGNATED COURT:
(v) W.P.Nos.13007, 13010, 13043, and 13072 of 2018 were filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of declaration, declaring that the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai is not the designated Special Court within the meaning of Section 84 of the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015,read with Section 280A of the Income Tax Act for the purpose of trying any offence under chapter V of the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015.
(E) WRIT PETITIONS, FILED AGAINST THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE AND ORDERS PASSED:
(vi) W.P.No.11715 of 2018 is for issuance of a declaration, calling for the records relating to the show cause notice dated 13.04.2018 bearing File No.Pr.DIT (Inv)/Prosecution / 2018-19 for Assessment Year 2016-17 issued by the respondent No.1 and all proceedings consequential to the
Adamji Lookmanji & Co. vs. State of Maharastra
Attorney General vs. Prince Ernest Augustus of Hanover
Ansal Properties & Industries Ltd. vs. State of Haryana
A.N. Roy Commissioner of Police vs. Suresh Sham Singh
Assistant Commissioner vs. Velliappa Textile Ltd. (2003) 132 Taxman 165 (SC)
Andhra Pradesh S.R.T.C. vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal
Assistant Collector of Customs, Bombay and Another vs. Behramji Merwanji Damania
Babita Lila vs. Union of India
Bhatia International vs. Bulk Trading S.A. and Another
Chief CIT (Administration) vs. Machine Tool Corporation of India Ltd. (1993) 201 ITR 101 (Karn)
Chief Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Machine Tool Corporation of India
Chotanagpur Banking Association Ltd. and Others vs. Govt. of India and Others
Commissioner of Sales Tax vs. M/s. Mangal Sen Shyamlal
Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Mangalore Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. (1991) 191 ITR 156 (Karn)
C.I.T. Madras vs. T. Sundram Iyengar (P) Ltd. 1976 (1) SCC 77
Central Bank of India vs. Ravindra and Others
Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Mahindra Mills
Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Mangalore Chemicals
Dr. Satyabhama Thakur vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Delhi Airtech Services (P) Ltd. vs. State of U.P. (2011) 9 SCC 354
D.R. Venkatachalam vs. Dy. Transport Commr. 1977 (2) SCC 273
Dadi Jagannadham vs. Jammulu Ramulu
Fakir Mohd. (dead) by LRs. vs. Sita Ram
Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. vs. Essar Power Ltd. (2008) 4 SCC 755
George Da Costa vs. Controller of Estate Duty, Mysore
Hakam Singh vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Hari Prasad Shivashanker Shukla vs. A.D. Divelkar
I.T. Commissioner vs. Shree Jagan Nath Maheswary
Indian Dental Association, Kerala vs. Union of India
J. Jayalalitha vs. Union of India
K.E. Sunil Babu, Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Steel Processors
Ku. Sonia Bhatia vs. State of U.P. and Others
Kalyanji Mavji & Company vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Kanai Lal Sur vs. Paramnidhi Sadhukhan
Lila Vati Bai vs. State of Bombay
M/s. Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. vs. Collector of Central Excise and Others
Moot Chand Mahesh Chand vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Mithilesh Singh vs. Union of India and Others
Mohd. Shahabuddin vs. State of Bihar
Nasiruddin vs. Sita Ram Agarwal
Nelson Motis vs. Union of India
Nyadar Singh vs. Union of India
Ombalika Das and Another vs. Hulisa Shaw
Poppatlal Shah vs. State of Madras
Philips India Ltd. vs. Labour Court
Poppatlal Shall vs. State of Madras
Punjab Breverages Pvt. Ltd. vs. Suresh Chand
Raza Textiles Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer, Rampur
Rao Shive Bahadur Singh vs. State
Rananjaya Singh vs. Baijnath Singh
Ramesh Chandra Sankla vs. Vikram Cement
R&B Falcon (A) PTY Limited vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Shrilekha Vidyarthi and Others vs. State of U.P. and Others
Shashikant Singh vs. Tarkeshwar Singh and Another
State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Dr. Vijay Anand Maharaj
Shyam Kishori Devi vs. Patna Municipal Corpn. AIR 1966 SC 1678
S.G. Jaisinghani vs. Union of India and Others
Smt. Shrisht Dhawan vs. M/s. Shaw Brothers
State of Jharkhand vs. Govind Singh
Stock vs. Frank Jones (Tipton) Ltd. (1978) 1 AllER 948
State of W.B. vs. Union of India
Shri M.L. Sethi vs. Shri R.P. Kapur
Sri Jeyaram Educational Trust & Others vs. A.G. Syed Mohideen & Others
Tanna & Modi vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai XXV and Others
Union of India vs. Wazir Singh
Union of India vs. Tarachand Gupta and Brothers
Vemareddy Kumaraswamy Reddy vs. State of A.P. (2006) 2 SCC 670
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.