TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 1299X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... estigation/enquiry is highly premature. There is no violation of any fundamental right or even legal right of the petitioner warranting interference of this Hon'ble Court at the stage of summons - In addition, there are allegations in the complaint u/s 51 regarding evasion of tax. The allegations are being investigated. Whether there is generation of proceeds of crime or not is being investigated and for the aforesaid reasons, the petition as of today is premature. The prayer for quashing of LoC at this stage again will be premature and hence is rejected. However, the petitioner has travelled in the past and needs to travel for his work. The liberty of the petitioner to travel abroad for the purpose of business cannot be curtailed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 6. He also states that there is an LoC issued against the petitioner which needs to be quashed. 7. In support he relies upon a judgment of this Court in 'Sathish Babu Sana vs. CBI' in W.P.(Crl) 249/2019 and more particularly para 10 which reads as under: 10. The petitioner thus satisfies the test laid down by this Court in Sumer Singh Salkan (supra) as he has neither deliberately evaded arrest nor failed to appear before the Trial Court despite the non-bailable warrants nor has any coercive action been taken against him and he has travelled abroad number of times with the permission of the Court, which concession he did not misuse and therefore there is no justification in continuing with the LOC opened against the petit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s been disclosed in his balance sheet of the year under consideration. Thus, it is apparent that the investment made in the property, over and above that declared in his return of income, is from his undisclosed income. Thus, the investments made have been recorded in the books of Sh. Raghav Bahl at a much lower value the actual value of the statement. Thus, the under reported investment of E2.73 lakhs is unexplained investment. as per the provisions of section of 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 since Sh. Raghav Bahl has failed to offer any explanation about the source of investment. thus, Sh. Raghav Bahl has willfully attempted to evade Tax as per sub-section 3 of the section 51 of the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income Assets) and I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ffer any explanation about the source of investment. thus, Sh. Raghav Bahl has willfully attempted to evade Tax . As per sub-section 3 of the section 51 of the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015. and declared just E5.84 lakhs (Rs. 5,33,83,416/-) only in FA Schedule of ROI for A.Y. 2018-19 instead of actual investment amounting to E 8.57 lakhs. Thus, it is appear net that Sh. Raghav Bahl has underreported total investment in his foreign assets by E2.73 lakhs. Accordingly, the case of the above stated person is falling into the ambit of provisions of section 50 of Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and imposition of Tax Act, 2015. 9. In this view of the matter, he states t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1.06.2013, who was residing at C-103, Gokul Divine, James Wadi, Irla, Ville Parle (West), Mumbai-400 056 and nothing incriminating was detected in the said search. It was further averred therein that the Officers threatened that the petitioner would be arrested, incarcerated in jail and would face dire consequence if he would not submit to their dictates. On that basis the writ petition came to be filed in this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. We, therefore, expressed that it was highly premature for the petitioner to seek for extraordinary constitutional remedy under Article 32 of the Constitution of India based on such flimsy averments contained in the writ petition, inasmuch as such averments cannot form the basis for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... u/s 51 regarding evasion of tax. The allegations are being investigated. Whether there is generation of proceeds of crime or not is being investigated and for the aforesaid reasons, the petition as of today is premature. 16. Hence, the prayer for quashing of the ECIR, is premature and is hereby rejected. 17. As regards the opening of the LoC against the petitioner is concerned, my attention has been drawn to OM dated 05.12.2017 which reads as under: In exceptional cases, LOCs can be issued even in such cases, as would not be covered by the guidelines above, whereby departure of a person from India may be declined at the request of any of the authorities mentioned in clause (b) of the above referred OM, if it appears to such author ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
