- (1.) Heard Sri Rakesh Pandey, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Amit Kumar Singh and Sri Prashant Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ashish Agrawal, learned counsel for respondents and perused record.
(2.) This petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been preferred seeking following relief: (I) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction to call for records leading to the issuance of Show cause notices dated 01.05.19 u/s 50 and 51 of the Black Money Act 2015, the Assessment order (if any exists on record), the Sanction order (if any exists on record) and the complaints u/s 50 and 51 of Black Money Act 2015 and quash and set aside the same as illegal, arbitrary aand violative of fundamental rights of petitioner. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing any sanction orders passed by the respondents whereby respondent's department filed the compliants dated 03.05.2019 u/s 50 and 51 of the Black Money Act 2015 for assessment year 2018-19 before the Special Judicial Magistrate, Meerut against petitioner without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and alternatively, if no such sanction orders are there quash the complaints dated 03.05.19 u/s 50 and 51 of Black Money Act 2015. (iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the criminal complaints Nos. 2982/2019 and 2983/2019 dated o3.05.19 filed by respondent's department u/s 50 and 51 of the Black Money Act 2015 for assessment year 2018-19 before the Special Judicial Magistrate, Meerut against petitioner as illegal and arbitrary and violative of fundamental rights of the petitioner; (iv) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Prohibition to prohibit the respondent from unnecessary harassing the petitioner by issuing Show-cause notices without any substance or cause of action on the basis of documents recovered through search on 11.10.18 at the home and office premises of the petitioner; (v) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent to conduct hearing and inquiry with regard to show cause notices dated 01.05.19 as per established procedure and in conformity with the principles of natural justice after quashing and setting aside the same. (vi) Issue a writ, order or direction to quash and set aside any subsequent and resultant proceedings, complaints dated 03.05.19 u/s 50 and 51 of the Black Money Act 2015 or action based on the show-cause notice dated 01.05.19 u/s 50 and 51 of Black Money Act 2015; (vii)Any other writ, order or directions which this Hon'ble court may deem just, fit and proper in the light of aforementioned facts and circumstances of the case and may kindly be passed and; (viii)Allow the writ petition with costs.
(3.) It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner, who is a journalist and editor, has entered into Sale and Purchase Agreement dated 30.11.2015 with ST George Blackfriars Limited to purchase a property in London (foreign asset) against consideration of GBP 2,725,000/ and details of said property were duly disclosed in the Income Tax Return of petitioner and that source of payments, which were made to purchase the alleged property, were also disclosed. The petitioner has made first payment of GBP 10,000 & 262500 from his foreign account and second payment of GBP 272,500 was made from foreign account of his daughter Ms Tara Bahl and thereafter through assignment deed dated 01.11.2017 petitioner has assigned his interest in said property to RBRK Investment Limited. It was submitted that a search under Section 132(1) of Income Tax Act was conducted by Income Tax Authorities at the residence and office premises of the petitioner and certain documents were seized and thereafter Income Tax Officer issued a show-cause notice dated 02.11.2018 against Ms. Tara Bahl, daughter of the petitioner, under Section 276C of the Income Tax Act 1961 for Assessment Year 2017-18 and 2018-19 and under Section 50 and 51 of the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Asset) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015) and another notice dated 02.11.2018 was issued against petitioner under Section 276C of the Income Tax Act 1961 for Assessment Year 2018-19 and under Section 50 and 51 of the Black Money Act, 2015, which were duly replied by their authorized representative/ Chartered Accountant. Again show cause notice dated 22.11.18 issued by the Income Tax Officer, which was replied vide reply letter dated 28.11.2018. Similarly, the show cause notice dated 07.12.18 under Section 50 of the Black Money Act, 2015 issued to the petitioner for the Assessment Year 2017-18 was also replied by reply dated 12.12.2018. It was stated that the Income Tax Officer vide Emails dated 01.05.2019 issued show-cause notice dated 01.05.2019 under Section 50 and 51 of the Black Money Act, 2015 against the petitioner for the Assessment year 2018-19, wherein it was alleged that the petitioner has under-reported total investment in his foreign Assets by GBP 2.73 lakhs and thereby, has wilfully attempted to evade tax and its reply was sought by 02.05.2019. The authorised representative/ CA of petitioner submitted that the information provided in show-cause notice dated 01.05.2019 is factually incorrect and that payments made by petitioner for London property have been duly and properly mentioned in Income Tax Return for Assessment Year 2018-19. The petitioner's representative has requested Income Tax Authority to adjourn the matter for a fortnight for submitting detailed response but that request was rejected by the Income Tax officer vide Emails dated 02.05.2019 and petitioner was directed to file factual reply/ submission of show-cause notice by 02.05.2019. Petitioner's authorized representative again requested for the grant of adjournment vide Email dated 11.05.2019 and thereafter authorized representative/CA Firm, has filed reply dated 13.05.2019 containing detailed submissions against the show-cause notice dated 01.05.2019 but the Respondent's Department has filed impugned criminal complaints on 03.05.2019 under Section 50 and 51 of Black Money Act, 2015 in the Court the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut, against petitioner. It was further submitted that no copy of any sanction has been provided to the petitioner and that respondents have denied opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before granting sanction and filing the impugned complaint as much as the third show-cause notice was issued on 01.05.2019 and complaint was filed on 03.05.2019 declining the request of petitioner to grant reasonable time to submit his submissions. If any Sanction order has been granted, it was passed without giving opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, who has specifically asked for it in its reply Emails dated 02.05.2019. The respondents have instituted the impugned complaints against the petitioner with intention to tarnish and harm his integrity and standing in public eyes and that the impugned complaints and sanction order do not fulfill the necessary ingredients of the alleged offence ie undisclosed foreign income and assets. It was stated that all the payments made in foreign bank account in connection with alleged property (foreign asset) were transferred from Indian legitimate bank accounts of petitioner and money transferred in foreign bank accounts was duly disclosed and that the petitioner has legitimate source of such income. Learned counsel further argued that the necessary ingredients of Section 50 and 51 of Black Money Act, 2015 are not satisfied and that no prima facie case is made out against the petitioner. It has been submitted that all investment in London property were duly disclosed in Income Tax Return and there was no undisclosed foreign income or assets of the petitioner.;