9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 154X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion that the petitioner's brother-in-law, Yusuf Mehboob Khan, citizen of Pakistan, was the beneficial owner of the property in London and also beneficial owner of M/s Bulova Holdings Limited and M/s Barro Holdings Limited was resoundingly rejected for cogent and good reasons. Reliance was placed on the power of attorney executed by Yusuf Mehboob Khan in favour of the petitioner, Moin Akhtar Qureshi, and discrepancies relied by the petitioner with regard to the accounts was duly considered. The contention of the petitioner that the acts attributable to him were on behalf of Yusuf Mehboob Khan, it was observed was unacceptable in view of the overwhelming evidence and material available and produced before the ITSC. The documents filed with the BSI Bank Limited, Singapore specifically and categorically mention that the petitioner was a beneficial owner. The veracity of these documents and the entire documentation regarding KYC cannot be ignored and treated as imaginary creation of the officers of the said bank and without knowledge and involvement of the petitioner. The ITSC has made reference to the banking procedures applicable, the strict KYC norms, the legal mandate and the req ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... decision of this Court in Ajmera Housing Corporation and Another versus CIT [2010 (8) TMI 35 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA], Commission of Income Tax versus Income Tax Settlement Commission and Others [2013 (7) TMI 95 - DELHI HIGH COURT] and and Vishwa Nath Gupta versus Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Central and Others, [2017 (5) TMI 848 - DELHI HIGH COURT] Violation of principles of natural justice - Held that:- We fail to fathom relevance of the said contention in the context in question. There is no violation of the principle of audi alteram partem in the said case as hearing was given as the impugned order refers to the various contentions and issues raised by the petitioner and answers the same. - Writ Petition (Civil) No. 4824/2017 - - - Dated:- 28-8-2018 - MR. SANJIV KHANNA AND MR. CHANDER SHEKHAR JJ. Petitioner Through: Mr. R.K. Handoo, Mr. Yoginder Handoo, Mr. Aditya Chaudhary, Mr. Manish Shukla Mr. Nishant Kumar, Advocates. Respondents Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Sr. Standing Counsel. CHANDER SHEKHAR, J.: This writ petition by Moin A. Qureshi (the petitioner for short) assails the order dated 12th May, 2017 under Section 245D(2C) of the Incom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rns on or about 4th December, 2014. 8. On 5th December, 2014, the petitioner, his wife Nasreen Moin Qureshi, AMQ Agro and his two employees Mohd. Shahnawaz and Aditya Sharma had moved applications under Section 245C(1) of the Act before the ITSC. These applications were, however, withdrawn with liberty to file fresh applications vide order dated 18th December, 2014 passed by the ITSC. The petitioner and four others mentioned above had thereafter filed fresh applications before the ITSC under Section 245C of the Act on 26th December, 2014 for the AYs 2008-09 to 2014-15, the period for which notices under Section 153A of the Act had been issued. 9. The applications filed by the petitioner and others were admitted by the ITSC vide order dated 7th January, 2014 under Section 245D(1) of the Act. 10. On 10th February, 2015, the first respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax(Central) II, Delhi had filed a report under Section 245D(2B) of the Act asserting and praying that the settlement application of the petitioner should be declared as invalid as there was failure to make full and true disclosure of undisclosed income and the manner in which the undisclosed income was earned. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot been granted to the petitioner to respond to these documents, an opportunity of hearing should be given. Accordingly, the order dated 24th February, 2015 was set aside with direction to the ITSC to render its decision at the stage of Section 245D(2C) of the Act within ten days from the date of first hearing, which was fixed on 25th May, 2015. Before the said date, the petitioner was to submit his response to the documents. The petitioner did not take plea of limitation with regard to additional documents filed on 19th February, 2015 and the documents, it was observed, would be construed to be a part of original report dated 10th February, 2015. The Court had clarified having not expressed any opinion on merits and that setting aside of the order dated 24th February, 2015 shall not come in the way of the ITSC taking a view on the matter. 15. Thereafter, the ITSC vide order dated 4th June, 2015 under Section 245D(2C) of the Act held that the settlement application filed by the petitioner was invalid for various reasons, including failure to make full and true disclosure of undisclosed income with reference to the London property and two foreign bank accounts of M/s Barro Holdin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... impugned order dated 4th June, 2015 the ITSC observed as under: 13.3. We have considered the submissions made by the AR and the CIT. The Hon ble High Court has remitted the matter back to us to allow an opportunity to the applicant to give his submissions on the entire 260 pages (rest being forwarding letters) which we find relate to the bank accounts at Singapore and the Flat at London. The Commission does not have to travel beyond the directions of the Hon ble High Court referred at para 13.2.3 above which unequivocally stated that the said writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent.... 5. Mr. Handoo, the learned counsel for the Petitioner, submitted that the above written submissions were not considered by the ITSC. This appears to be correct. The Court is unable to find in what manner in the impugned order has the ITSC considered those submissions. The said submissions are significant in view of the two factors adverted to by the ITSC in the impugned order which weighed with it in reiterating its conclusion that the Petitioner had not made a full and true disclosure of all facts within his knowledge. In this connection a reference needs to be made to para 14.3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 15.18. Another very important document which is relied by the Department is an Annexure-C of the submission dated 25.05.2015 of the CIT at page 55 which is an indemnity signed by the applicant Mr. Qureshi to the Board of Directors of Bulova authorising them to purchase the property being Flat NO. 4, Chesterfield House, South Audley Street, London for purchase price of GBP 38,50,000/-. This indemnity also authorized Board of Directors to appoint Solicitor Mischan de Raya for purchase of this property at London. This further establishes that the applicant Mr. Qureshi is the real owner of that flat. Besides that there are lots of e-mails which are part of the submission made by the CIT in their earlier submission and earlier hearing on 10.02.2015 and 19.02.2015 where the approval of artefacts and other furnishing including the carpets have been done by the applicant for which e-mails have been sent to employees of Sh. Qureshi for his approval. This also corroborates the fact of Sh. Moin Akhtar Qureshi being the real owner of the flat at London and not a power of attorney holder only as it is the real owner who normally approves/ decides, now and with what his flat is to be furnished a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y Barro Holdings Ltd. (Barro) with BSI Bank Ltd. Singapore in Form A and that this account was opened on 22.07.2011 and closed on 19.04.2013.... 11. As a result of the above correction in para 15.10 the conclusion that the Petitioner had not made a full and true disclosure of the facts in respect of the above account, completely changed. There was now an acknowledgement by the ITSC that there was no failure to make a full and true disclosure by the Petitioner as far as the above bank account was concerned. 12. The question that next arises is whether the above change brought about to the order dated 4th June, 2015 by the subsequent order dated 26th June, 2015 would have an impact on the main conclusion drawn by the ITSC in its order dated 4th June, 2015, that the Petitioner did not make a full and true disclosure of all facts. It will be recalled that there were two pieces of information which were brought before the ITSC by the Department in the second round to persuade the ITSC to hold that there was no full and true disclosure by the Petitioner; one was regarding the bank account and the other was regarding the property at London. As regards the property at London, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l pass an order uninfluenced by any of its earlier orders that have been set aside by this Court. 19. We have reproduced the entire reasoning in the order on record dated 13th April, 2017 in the aforesaid quotation so as to appreciate and understand the contention raised and our reasons. Paragraph 5 of the aforesaid quotation refers to the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that written submissions had not been considered, which it was observed appeared to be correct for the ITSC had not set out the manner in which those submissions were considered. Thereafter, reference was made to the information received by the Revenue and relied upon in relation to the bank accounts and the property at London. Paragraph 6 of the said order states that information received had been discussed in extenso by the ITSC before drawing their conclusion and findings in paragraphs 15.17 and 15.18. 20. Thereafter, reference was made to the rectification application filed by the respondents, purportedly for correction of factual mistake and error in paragraph 15.10 of the order dated 4th June, 2015, which had recorded that the bank account opening forms were signed by the petitioner, i.e. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... first order dated 18th May, 2015 passed in Writ Petition (C) No. 4900/2015. It was also directed that parties would not file additional or further documents and the matter would be decided on the basis of existing documents after giving hearing. Fresh decision was to be on merits and in accordance with the law without being influenced by the earlier orders, which had been set aside. 22. As noticed above, we have not, till now, referred to and elucidated on paragraphs 10 and 11 of the decision dated 13th April, 2017 in Writ Petition (C) No. 8101/2015. The petitioner relies on the observations made in these paragraphs. In particular, our attention was drawn to the observations in paragraph 11 of this order, which records there was now an acknowledgement by the ITSC that there was no failure to make a full and true disclosure by the petitioner as far as the above bank account was concerned . 23. Having considered the said contention, we find that the petitioner is misreading the aforesaid observations out of context for it was never the case of the Revenue, i.e. the respondents, that the account opening forms with BSI Bank Limited, Singapore were signed by the petitioner Moin A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unt opening forms were signed by the petitioner and his address was mentioned as C-134, Defence Colony, New Delhi, whereas the factual position was that the petitioner had signed and affirmed that he was a beneficial owner of the accounts and given personal details though he had not signed the account opening forms on behalf of M/s Bulova Holdings Limited and M/s Barro Holdings Limited. Reference in paragraph 11, therefore, was limited and with reference to the aforesaid correction made vide order dated 26th June, 2015. We do not think that the aforesaid observation can be treated as a final and conclusive finding given by the High Court that the petitioner had made full and true disclosure in the settlement application before the ITSC with reference to the two accounts. There is no discussion in this order dated 13th April, 2017 on the said aspect. 26. In the State of U.P. v. Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd., 1991 (3) SCR 64 , the Supreme Court has held that any declaration or conclusion arrived without application of mind or preceded without any reason would not tantamount to a declaration of law which binds all Courts. The relevant paragraph of the aforesaid judgment is re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on with reference to controversy/issue settled and decided. Relevant paragraphs in Deepak Bajaj (Supra) read as under:- 7. It is well settled that the judgment of a court is not to be read mechanically as a Euclid's theorem nor as if it were a statute. 14. On the subject of precedents Lord Halsbury, L.C., said in Quinn v. Leathem [1901 AC 495 : (190003) All ER Rep 1 (HL)] : (All ER p. 7 G-I) [Now before] discussing Allen v. Flood [1898 AC 1 : (189599) All ER Rep 52 (HL)] and what was decided therein, there are two observations of a general character which I wish to make; and one is to repeat what I have very often said before-that every judgment must be read as applicable to the particular facts proved or assumed to be proved, since the generality of the expressions which may be found there are not intended to be expositions of the whole law, but are governed and qualified by the particular facts of the case in which such expressions are to be found. The other is that a case is only an authority for what it actually decides. I entirely deny that it can be quoted for a proposition that may seem to follow logically from it. Such a mode of reasoning as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the language actually used by that most distinguished Judge, 10. In Home Office v. Dorset Yacht Co. Ltd. [1970 AC 1004: (1970) 2 WLR 1140 : (1970) 2 All ER 294 (HL)] Lord Reid said: Lord Atkin's speech is not to be treated as if it were a statutory definition. It will require qualification in new circumstances. Megarry, J. in Shepherd Homes Ltd. v. Sandham (No. 2) [(1971) 1 WLR 1062 : (1971) 2 All ER 1267] observed: (All ER p. 1274 d) One must not, of course, construe even a reserved judgment of even Russell, L.J. as if it were an Act of Parliament; And, in British Railways Board v. Herrington [1972 AC 877 : (1972) 2 WLR 537 : (1972) 1 All ER 749 (HL)] Lord Morris said: (All ER p. 761 c) There is always peril in treating the words of a speech or a judgment as though they were words in a legislative enactment, and it is to be remembered that judicial utterances are made in the setting of the facts of a particular case. 28. The controversy and issue in the Writ Petition (C) No. 8101/2015 in view of the reasoning quoted above was predicated on two aspects. Firstly, the correction to the order dated 4th June, 2015 was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... further documents filed either by the Department or by the Petitioner. On the basis of the existing documents, the ITSC will, after giving opportunity of being heard to both the parties, pass an order uninfluenced by any of its earlier orders that have been set aside by this Court. 9. The case of the applicant was fixed for the hearing on the 02.05.2017 to give effect to the above direction of the Hon ble High Court. In response to the notice of hearing under section 245D(2C) of the Act, Sh. Niraj Jain CA, Sh. Hiren Mehta CA, Sh. Deepak Gupta CA, Sh. Ashwani Gupta CA, Sh. P.K. Mishra CA and Sh. Dinesh Kumar Accountants attended on behalf of the applicant. Sh. Vinay Kumar Karan, CIT(DR) appeared for the Department along with Ms. M.V. Bhanumati, DIT (Inv.), Sh. V.K. Jiwani JCIT, Sh. Gaurav Pundir, DDIT (Inv.) and Sh. Santosh Kumar ACIT, Central. 10. At the outset of the fresh proceedings u/s 245D(2C), Sh. Niraj Jain, A.R raised the issue whether the scope of proceedings before the Commission was limited only to the two issues viz. the foreign bank account and the London property of Sh. Moin Qureshi or all the issues involved in the original order u/s 245D(2C) dated 24.2.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sion should again undertake the exercise that it was expected to undertake pursuant to the order dated 18.5.2015 in W.P. (C) No. 4900/2015. In the order dated 18.5.2015 the Hon ble High Court had observed as under; We are of the view that the documents which were filed on 19.2.2015 constituted part of the report which the Commissioner had initially filed on 10.2.2015. We also note that the Settlement Commission had relied upon the documents which were filed on 19.2.2015. In this back drop, we are of the view that adequate opportunity was not given to the petitioner to respond to the said documents. For this reason, we are setting aside the impugned order dated 24.2.2015. We are remitting the matter to the Settlement Commission to the stage of consideration of the Commissioner s report and of giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Considering the fact that the primary prayer of the applicant in Writ Petition (C) No. 4900/2015 was that the Commission had not given adequate opportunity before taking cognisance of the documents running into 260 pages during the hearing on 19.2.2015 and before passing the order dated 4.2.2015 and the above directions were g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the existing documents ie. submissions made by both the parties subsequent to the setting aside of the order dated 24.2.2017 on 18.5.2017 and passing of the fresh order on 4.6.2015. 11. Submissions made by the applicant and the Department : As directed by the Hon ble High Court the submissions made by the applicant on 22.5.2015 and 28.5.2015 have been examined. 31. Paragraph 8 reproduces the order dated 13th April, 2017 passed in Writ Petition (C) No. 8101/2015 remanding the case to the ITSC for fresh adjudication. Paragraph 9 refers to the attendance of counsel, who had appeared for hearing on 2nd May, 2017 before the ITSC. Paragraphs 10 to 10.4 refer to the contentions that were raised by the parties on the scope and ambit of the proceedings, and observations and findings of the ITSC in that regard. In paragraph 10 of the order refers to the contention raised by the petitioner that paragraph 11 of the order dated 13th April, 2017 passed by the High Court had given a clear finding that there was no failure on the part of the petitioner to make full and true disclosure as far as bank accounts was concerned. Thereafter, reference was made to paragraph 14 of the order dat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... before us. 32. While we would agree that the order dated 4th June, 2015 could have been better worded, but we would not hold that the failure to use better words or language would itself vitiate the final findings recorded by the ITSC with reference to full and true disclosure made by the petitioner with reference to the London property and the two bank accounts. The ITSC has complied with the directions of the High Court in the orders dated 18th May,2015 passed in Writ Petition (C) No. 4900/2015 and the order dated 13th April, 2017 in the Writ Petition(C) No. 8101/2015. On examination and consideration afresh, the ITSC with reference the two bank accounts and the London property has concluded that there was failure on the part of the petitioner to make full and true disclosure and the manner in which the undisclosed income was earned. This was the main and core issue that had become the subject matter of the order dated 4th June, 2015 and subsequent rectification order dated 26th June, 2015 passed by the ITSC. This was also the subject matter of the Writ Petition (C) No. 8101/2015 decided vide order dated 13th April, 2017. This fundamental issue was to be decided, for it is acc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... its turnover, number of employees in the group and properties owned by him are overstated/inflated. We have considered this objection, but we tend to agree with the Department that these kinds of discrepancies do not have any bearing on the main issue at hand i.e. whether Sh. Moin Quereshi was the beneficial owner of the Bank account. iii. with regard the issue of POA given by Sh. Yousuf Khan the brother in law of the applicant in the name of Sh. Moin Kureshi on 11.4.2011 the A.R stated that the POA proves that Sh. Moin Qureshi was only acting on behalf of Sh. Yousuf Khan and it was Sh. Khan who was the real beneficiary. However, a perusal of the document in question shows it is a very general and wide ranging power of attorney executed by Sh Mehboob Khan in the name of Sh. Moin Akhtar Quereshi to do a very wide range of acts on his behalf in multifarious jurisdiction including various tax havens. This power of attorney does not refer to any specific transaction or to any specific bank account. It the context of the bank account in BSI Bank, the most important factor is that in the KYC documents provided by BSI Bank it is only Sh. Moin Akhtar Quereshi who figures as the benef ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he hearing held on 9.5.2017 as a part of the present proceedings, while responding to the objections raised by the A.R., the D.R. explained that the banking procedures in Swiss Banks are very different from those prevailing in India. In India only natural persons are allowed to open a bank account. The Swiss Banks allow even a company, the directors of which are in turn not natural persons but corporate or other artificial juridical entities, to open bank accounts on behalf of a natural person. In such a structure the identity of a natural person remains hidden behind a layer of artificial juridical entities. It was pointed out by the D.R. that it was primarily to counter the abuse of these kind of bank accounts and check the menace of fund flows to terrorist, drug smugglers and money launderers that Financial Action Task Force (FATF) of which India is a signatory and Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) came into existence. Under these regulations the Banking Companies are obliged to observe strict Know Your Customer; (KYC) norms and identify the real or the beneficial owner before opening a bank account. The beneficial owner for the purpose of these regulations is defined ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is and obtain his signature on the necessary documents. 12.6. Thus the two objections raised above are frivolous, immaterial and peripheral to the issue. The clinching evidence of the identity of the beneficial owner is the declaration by the company Barro through its director Arcas Holding Ltd as to who is its beneficial owner. In this declaration, name of Mr. Qureshi was mentioned along with his other details. It is to be understood that the bank account is a contract between BSI Ltd and the account holder Barro- the contracting partner. 12.7 The account holder is required by law of Singapore to give verification of the beneficial owner identity. In this case, Arcas Holding Ltd - one of the directors and authorized signatory of Barro has verified that the B.O. vs Qureshi Moin Akhtar, 26.10.1958, India C-134, Defence Colony, New Delhi-110024 as the beneficial owner. Qureshi Moin Akhtar is none other than the applicant Mr. Qureshi. This declaration is in Form-A and on page 24 of the additional documents provided by the Singapore tax authorizes and produced before ITSC on 19/02/2015. The director of Barro i.e. Aracas Holdings Ltd, has given an undertaking to inform the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pletely establishes that Mr. Qureshi is the owner of London property. The document is enclosed as Annexure-C. This indemnity was executed before date of purchase of property. This establishes culpability and mens rea of Mr. Qureshi becuase he was given opportunity many times by the revenue to explain the ownership of this London property. 12.10 Now the revenue is in the possession of new information/evidence regarding beneficial ownership of the bank account No. 61128131. 2002 current account USD ..... Of Bulova Holding Ltd. in BSI bank Singapore by Mr. Qureshi. Independent information received from BVI dated 04/02/2015 received in the office DIT (Inv.2-), Delhi on 20/02/2015 provided Memorandum of association, registers of members, directors and shareholders of the legal persons, shareholding pattern, certificate of incorporation etc. copies of all the material received from BVI authorities is enclosed as Annexure D. It contains, inter- alia of bank account, copy of account opening form of Bulova Holdings Ltd. held with BSI bank. Ltd. Singapore. The information was provided by the competent authorities of BVI under his signature. 12.11 Bulova was incorporated on 22/02/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed Form-A dated 16/09/2014 his address was changed to 9202 Princess Towers, Marina Dubai after the date of search with the intention of hoodwinking the revenue. When Mr. Qureshi was examined on oath on 09/04/2014, he had stated this address is that of the residence of his friend Mr. Himanshu Mehta who owns the property. This shows that the reference to Qureshi Moin Akhtar in the revised Form-A was again to the Mr. Qureshi only. This shows that he has given this address of Dubai to mislead and hoodwink the revenue. It is reiterated that the Singapore authorities have confirmed that orbis was engaged by Mr. Qureshi and if managed Bulova on fiduciary basis. Mr. Qureshi gave instructions for furnishing the London property in his capacity as beneficial owner of Bulova. This was based upon copy of the declaration of beneficial owner made by Bulova to BSI Ag. Another significant fact to be noted is that the documents obtained from BVI where Bulova and Francatina are registered don t even tangentially mention about Mr. Yusuf Mehboob Khan. 12.3 From the above facts it is abundantly clear that Mr. Moin Qureshi was the beneficial owner of the bank account in question. This fact has com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... losed the existence of the account in question and explained the source of amounts credited in it. Further, as the flow of funds from this account and the purchase of property in London are intricately linked on both the issues the disclosure is not full and true. 12.5 It is established law that the Settlement Commission has to examine the full and true nature of the disclosure of income at every stage of the settlement proceedings i.e. u/s 245D(1), 245D(2C) and 245D(4) and if at any stage it is found that the applicant has not made full and true disclosure, the Commission is required to reject the application at that stage and send the case back to the Assessing Officer. This view has been supported by a number of decisions including: (i) Ajmera Housing Corporation vs CIT (2010) 326 ITR 642 (S.C) (ii) CIT vs ITSC, (2014) 365 ITR 68 (Bombay) (iii) CIT vs ITSC (2014) 360 ITR 407 (Delhi) (iv) V.M. Shaik Mohammed Rowther vs ITSC (1999) 236 ITR 581 (Madras) We are therefore of the view that it is not a fit case to be allowed to be proceeded with as the applicant has not made a full and true disclosure of all the material facts in absence of which i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... established by verified copy of the passport. 37. We have also examined the documents, copies of which have been placed on record, including the power of attorney executed by M/s Arcas Holding Limited, the director of M/s Barro Holdings Limited in favour of the petitioner. They had certified and identified the petitioner as the beneficial owner. M/s Barro Holdings Limited was registered in Republic of Seychelles. As per the documents received from the Government of Republic of Singapore under the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement and prevention of fiscal evasion in respect of taxes, M/s Barro Holdings Limited had opened a bank account with BSI Bank Limited, Singapore on 22nd July, 2011, which account was closed on 19th April, 2013 and all assets and cash balance of USD 384747.13 was transferred to the account of M/s Barro Holdings Limited with the BSI Bank Limited, Hongkong. M/s Arcas Holding Limited and Somas Group, SA, companies registered in British Virginia Islands were authorized signatory of M/s Barro Holdings Limited. Somas Group, SA was also acting as Secretary of Barro Holdings Limited. Arcas Holdings Limited had executed a power of attorney dated 29th June, 2011 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .e. Moin Akhtar Qureshi has declared himself as beneficial owner of the bank account of M/s Bulova Holdings Limited maintained with the BSI Bank, AG. 40. Moin Akhtar Qureshi, had executed and signed indemnity bond, indemnifying the board of directors of M/s Bulova Holdings Limited. He had authorized the board of directors of M/s Bulova Holdings Limited to purchase the London property, i.e. 4, Chesterfield House, South Audley, Mayfair, London, and appoint a solicitor. M/s Bulova Holdings Limited was / is the registered owner of the London property which was acquired in May, 2012. Details of the income, payments from M/s Barro Holdings Limited to M/s Bulova Holdings Limited were available. 41. The aforesaid evidence is compelling and conclusive. It cannot be ignored. It is in this context and in view of these documents specific factual findings have been recorded by the ITSC. It was also recorded that the petitioner had failed to adduce specific and clear evidence to show that he was not the beneficial owner of M/s Barro Holdings Limited etc. and the accounts and the London property were owned by his brother-in-law. 42. On the question of full and true disclosure and the sta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
