9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 201X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the fact that the petitioner had held undisclosed assets? - HELD THAT:- The date on which the respondents/revenue acquired knowledge would then trigger the guidelines that the CBDT framed on 23.01.2018, which required it to issue notice under Section 10(1) of the 2015 Act within thirty (30) days of the end of the FY when it acquired such knowledge. Whether provisions of the 2015 Act would apply to those undisclosed assets which had been acquired prior to 01.07.2015? - Petioner at this stage, says that there are several other issues/grounds that the petitioner would want to put forth for consideration of this court. Mr Vohra says that the additional grounds find place in the writ petition. Matter requires further examination. List ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 10(3) of the 2015 Act. 3. The record shows that the information with regard to the fact that the petitioner was, perhaps, holding undisclosed assets in the British Virgin Islands came to light sometime in 2013 on account of an investigation carried out by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists [hereafter referred to as, ICIJ ]. 4. The provisions of the 2015 Act were triggered on 01.07.2015. It appears that between 2013 and until such time the 2015 Act was triggered, the petitioner was in denial mode. 4.1. The petitioner made a declaration with regard to his undisclosed assets which were embedded in a company going by the name Blackrose Holdings Inc., for the first time, on 30.09.2015. 5. The respondents/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ertain factual and legal assertions were made. [See Annexure S appended on page 208 of the case file]. 9. Apart from other assertions made, one of the assertions that the petitioner made was based on the FAQs contained in the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) circular dated 06.07.2015. 9.1. The upshot of the assertion was that once the petitioner s declaration under Section 59 of the 2015 Act was considered ineligible, then proceedings under the 2015 Act cannot be triggered. 10. The record also shows that on 10.11.2022, the respondents/revenue passed an order whereby the petitioner s request made via reply dated 06.09.2022 that proceedings under the 2015 Act should be dropped, was rejected. 11. The reasons, based on which, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... knowledge of the fact that the petitioner held undisclosed foreign assets. In support of this submission, reliance is placed on the guidelines dated 23.01.2018 issued by the CBDT. 13.2 Thirdly, Mr Vohra submitted that the provisions of the 2015 Act cannot, possibly, apply retrospectively/retroactively. 14. Mr Vohra says that, if not all, some of these issues are being considered by this court in a bunch of petitions, including W.P.(C)1503/2021, titled Surendra Kumar Jain v. ACIT and W.P.(C)5559/2021, titled Harvansh Chawla v. Ministry of Finance. 15. Mr Gaurav Gupta, senior standing counsel, who appears on behalf of the respondents/revenue, in opposition to the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner, relies upon the o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 23.01.2018, which required it to issue notice under Section 10(1) of the 2015 Act within thirty (30) days of the end of the FY when it acquired such knowledge. 17.2. Second, whether provisions of the 2015 Act would apply to those undisclosed assets which had been acquired prior to 01.07.2015? 18. Mr Vohra, at this stage, says that there are several other issues/grounds that the petitioner would want to put forth for consideration of this court. Mr Vohra says that the additional grounds find place in the writ petition. 19. According to us, matter requires further examination. 20. Issue notice. 20.1 Mr Gaurav Gupta accepts notice on behalf of the respondents/revenue. 21. Counter-affidavit will be filed within next three we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
