SHRIVARDHAN MOHTA Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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.

(2.) Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that, the petitioner is an assessee under the Income Tax Act , 1961. A search and seizure was carried out by the Income Tax Authorities at the residence of the petitioner on March 7, 2018. During such search and seizure, foreign bank accounts, held by the petitioner with HSBC Bank (Foreign Assets), were found. The petitioner explained such bank accounts as belonging to the deceased mother of the petitioner and that, the petitioner received such bank accounts as a part of his inheritance. A notice under Section 153A of the Act of 1961 was issued upon the petitioner. The petitioner was called upon to furnish return of income for the assessment years 2009-10 to 2015-16 within 30 days of receipt of such notice. The petitioner duly filed return for such assessment years. A notice under Section 142(a) of the Act of 1961 was received by the petitioner. During the pendency of the assessment proceedings, the petitioner approached the Settlement Commission for the assessment years 2009-10 to 2015-16. Such settlement proceedings did not result in a settlement. The Settlement Commission declared the application of the petitioner as invalid. Thereafter, the petitioner made an application under Section 154 of the Act of 1961 for rectification of the order of the Settlement Commission which was rejected. The Assessing Officer proceeded to complete the assessment for the years 2009-10 to 2015-16 under Section 153A read with Section 143(3) of the Act of 1961. The foreign bank accounts and the amount lying thereat were taken into consideration by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer raised demands after giving credit to the payments made by the petitioner during the settlement proceedings. The authorities initiated proceedings under Section 271(1)(b) and 271(1)(c) of the Act of 1961 for penalty. The order of the Assessing Officer was challenged by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority.

(3.) During the pendency of the assessment proceedings, the Act of 2015 came into effect. Since proceedings under the Act of 1961 were pending, the petitioner could not avail of the opportunity to make a voluntary disclosure under the Act of 2015. The petitioner received show cause notices under the Act of 2015 to which the petitioner replied. Ultimately, the authorities purporting to exercise jurisdiction under the Act of 2015 granted a sanction to prosecute the petitioner.