Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2022 (8) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (8) TMI 749 - HC - Income TaxBlack money - Undisclosed Foreign Assets - Beneficial Owner of the specified Undisclosed Assets - proceedings under the provisions of Section 10[1] of the Black Money [Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets] and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 - whether the petitioner is a beneficial owner of the ‘Undisclosed Assets’? - HELD THAT:- AO can proceed to assess the undisclosed foreign income and asset to determine the liability only on considering the accounts/documents, and evidence, and every further relevant material gathered. Further, the Assessing Officer, for the purposes of such enquiry u/s 10[2] of the BM Act, is vested with the necessary powers to direct discovery and production of evidence. The provisions of Section 8[2] of the BM Act specify that the authority, for the purposes of making an enquiry or investigation, shall be vested with specific powers as regards discovery and inspection, enforcing attendance and compelling production of documents and issuing commissions. These purposes are mentioned in Section 8[1] of the BM Act. The scheme of notice, further notices, enquiry and assessment under Section 10 of the BM Act is comprehensive and the AO must examine the entire gamut of circumstances and decide on the "jurisdictional fact" as a condition precedent for assessment. In this Court’s considered opinion this scheme does not admit of any ambiguity to employ an interpretative tool, especially the reading of a definition clause which would not be a positive enactment, to construe a segregated enquiry. It is also argued that the provisions of Section 8 of the BM Act would indicate a distinct and separate enquiry on the "jurisdictional fact" from an enquiry that is contemplated under Section 10 of the BM Act. But in the light of the scheme under Section 10 and the express provisions of Section 8[2], such reading would be a contrived reading. As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Central Excise, Haldia v. M/s Krishna Wax [P] Ltd., [2019 (11) TMI 673 - SUPREME COURT] the significance of the date of issuance of notices will also have to be borne in mind when admittedly, the date of issuance of show-cause notice becomes vital for the purpose of limitation under the BM Act. If as contended on behalf of the petitioner, enquiry on the "jurisdictional fact" and assessment are segregated, despite the scheme under section 10, there would be serious ramifications but without the necessary redressal. The settled proposition is that in construing fiscal statutes and in determining the tax liability, the strict rules of interpretation will have to be followed without adding or importing significance beyond the language used in such statutes. In the light of the above, and the respondents' admitted position that the Assessing Officer must necessarily decide on the "jurisdictional fact" viz., whether the petitioner could be called a Beneficial Owner of the specified Undisclosed Asset considering the material that the petitioner produces, and there will be sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to produce further documents, this Court must answer the first question in the negative and in favour of the respondents Validity of issuance of notice under Section 10 of BM Act - statutory time limit is prescribed for issuance of notice under Section 10[1] of the BM Act - The contention that the Assessing Officer should be presumed to have had Information of the alleged transaction is very presumptuous, and no such presumption can be drawn at this stage to truncate the enquiry. Therefore, this Court cannot opine that the Impugned Notice is issued beyond thirty days from the date of Information and therefore prior approval had to be obtained. The Impugned Notice is very detailed and there are multiple references to different transactions between and amongst M/s. RAL and other entities. The Impugned Notice also refers to certain Minutes of Meetings and instances of payments with necessary documents illustrated. The transactions are multi-fold and make a complex web, and this Court, when the petitioner is yet to file response and produce documents/accounts/evidence, and the Assessing Officer is yet to consider those materials, cannot opine that the Impugned Notice lacks in material details or has not considered material circumstances - The question Nos.2 and 3 must therefore be answered in the negative and in favour of the respondents
|