Court quashes sanction orders under Black Money Act, emphasizes Assessing Officer's role. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate not designated Special Court.

The court quashed the sanction orders and prosecution complaints filed against the petitioners under Section 50 of the Black Money Act. It held that the Principal Director of Income Tax is competent to sanction prosecution, but emphasized that prosecution can only be sanctioned if the Assessing Officer has passed an order under Section 10(3) of the Act. Additionally, the court concluded that the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, is not the designated Special Court for the purposes of the Black Money Act, thereby dismissing the prosecution complaints against the petitioners.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Competence of the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax to sanction prosecution.
2. Constitutionality of Sections 48 and 50 of the Black Money Act.
3. Designation of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate as the Special Court.
4. Validity of show cause notices and orders passed.
5. Review of previous orders.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Competence of the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax to Sanction Prosecution:
The petitioners challenged the competence of the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (Tamil Nadu and Puducherry) to sanction prosecution under Section 55 of the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015. The court examined whether the Principal Director of Income Tax (Investigation) is an authority having jurisdiction under the said Act to sanction prosecution. The court held that the Principal Director of Income Tax is competent to accord sanction for prosecution, as per Section 2(16) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which defines "Commissioner" to include a person appointed as Principal Director of Income-tax.

2. Constitutionality of Sections 48 and 50 of the Black Money Act:
The petitioners contended that Sections 48 and 50 of the Black Money Act are arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The court analyzed the provisions and held that the offence under Section 50 is made out only if there is a willful failure to disclose any information relating to a foreign asset in the return of income filed under Section 139(1), (4), or (5) of the Income-tax Act. The court emphasized that the revised return of income obliterates or effaces any earlier return of income. Therefore, the court concluded that the provisions are not unconstitutional as long as they are interpreted to mean that prosecution can be sanctioned only if the Assessing Officer has passed an order under Section 10(3) of the Act.

3. Designation of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate as the Special Court:
The petitioners argued that the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai is not the designated Special Court within the meaning of Section 84 of the Black Money Act, read with Section 280A of the Income Tax Act. The court examined the provisions and held that the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai has not been designated as the Special Court for the purposes of the Black Money Act by the Central Government. Therefore, the court concluded that the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate does not have jurisdiction to take cognizance of the prosecution complaint filed by the respondents against the petitioners.

4. Validity of Show Cause Notices and Orders Passed:
The petitioners challenged the show cause notices and orders passed by the respondents. The court analyzed the facts and held that the show cause notices were issued without proper jurisdiction and without considering the revised returns filed by the petitioners under Section 139(5) of the Income-tax Act. The court emphasized that the revised return of income is the only relevant return that can be relied upon or referred to. Consequently, the court quashed the show cause notices and the prosecution complaints filed against the petitioners.

5. Review of Previous Orders:
The court reviewed the previous orders passed in W.P.Nos.8832 to 8835, 8840, and 8841 of 2018, which were dismissed. The court held that in light of the quashing of the sanction orders and prosecution proceedings, no further orders are required in the appeals filed against the previous orders. Therefore, the court dismissed the review petitions.

Conclusion:
The court quashed the sanction orders and prosecution complaints filed against the petitioners under Section 50 of the Black Money Act. The court held that the Principal Director of Income Tax is competent to sanction prosecution, but emphasized that prosecution can be sanctioned only if the Assessing Officer has passed an order under Section 10(3) of the Act. The court also concluded that the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai is not the designated Special Court for the purposes of the Black Money Act.

---