Case Law Details
Shrivardhan Mohta Vs Union of India (Calcutta High Court)
Conclusion: Where assessee was given an opportunity to make the disclosure with regard to foreign bank accounts and the amount lying thereat however assessee failed to avail the opportunity to make disclosure with regard thereto while submitting his return in the proceedings under search and seizure and also before Settlement Commission, the authorities was justified to initiate prosecution as per the provisions of Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015.
Held: Admittedly, assesssee was in possession of financial assets located outside India. Assessee admitted to have four bank accounts with HSBC Singapore in foreign currency such as Singaporean Dollar, Great Britain Pound, U.S. Dollars and Australian Dollars. The explanation was inheritance. Inheritance did not prevent him from disclosing. It was just an unacceptable excuse. Assessee had an opportunity to make the disclosure with regard thereto while submitting his return in the proceedings under search and seizure and also had an opportunity to disclose such assets before Settlement Commission. Assessee did not avail of any of the two opportunities. Failure to make a disclosure under Section 153A of the Act of 1961 was punishable under the provisions of the Act of 2015. The Act of 2015 came into effect from April 1, 2016. The Act of 2015 allowed a window of opportunity from July 1, 2015 to September 30, 2015 to make disclosures. Notwithstanding such window of opportunity, assessee had opportunity under the Act of 1961 to make a true and proper disclosure of the foreign assets. Assessee did not do so. It failed to make true and full disclosure after the search and seizure and also in the Settlement proceedings. Those opportunities were subsequent to the Act of 2015 coming into effect. Therefore, assessee failed to furnish in his return of income, an information about an asset located outside India. It attracted the provisions of Section 50 of the Act of 2015. He could be proceeded against under the Act of 2015. There were sufficient materials on record for proceeding against assessee under the Act of 2015. Section 55 of the Act of 2015 provides the persons at whose instance, the prosecution will be made for an offence under Section 49 to Section 53 both inclusive. In the facts of the present case, the Act of 1961 did not impose a punishment of imprisonment while the Act of 2015 did. In such circumstances, it could not be said that, assessee had been sought to be punished twice for the same offence.
FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER / JUDGMENT
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.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
