2022 (9) TMI 1099 - HC - Income Tax

Court dismisses writ petitions challenging Black Money Act, grants liberty to file appeals, no punitive action until appeal decision.

Tabasum Mir, Amir Mir, Abdul Rashid Mir & Ors. Versus Union of India And Ors

Tabasum Mir, Amir Mir, Abdul Rashid Mir & Ors. Versus Union of India And Ors - TMI Issues Involved:1. Common questions of fact and law.2. Nature of the challenge.3. Genesis of the litigation.4. Details of the writ petitions.5. Arguments of the parties.6. Discussion and analysis.7. Conclusion.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:i. Common Questions of Fact and Law:The court noted that the six connected petitions involved common questions of fact and law, and thus were decided by a common order.ii. Nature of Challenge:The first three writ petitions challenged the validity of notices issued under Section 10(1) of the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015, and show cause notices. The subsequent three writ petitions challenged penalty notices, assessment orders, and demand notices.iii. Genesis of the Litigation:The litigation arose from the undisclosed foreign assets and income of Late Mujeeb Mir, who had established the Mondale Irrevocable Discretionary Trust. Following his death, his beneficiaries, including the petitioners, inherited the assets. The petitioners disclosed these assets to the Reserve Bank of India and included them in their wealth tax returns. However, following the Panama Papers leak, income tax proceedings were initiated against them under the Act of 2015.iv. Details of the Writ Petitions:The petitioners contended that they were beneficiaries of a trust created abroad and had brought their share of the money to India with RBI's permission. They argued that the show cause notices and subsequent assessment orders were without jurisdiction as they were issued without passing an assessment order under Section 10 of the Act of 2015.v. Arguments of the Parties:- Petitioners' Arguments:- The action by the assessing authority was without jurisdiction as the Act of 2015 did not apply to assets created by a Non-Resident Indian from income generated abroad.- The Act of 2015 applies only to undisclosed foreign assets held on 1st July 2015, and the petitioners did not hold any such assets at that time.- The assessment year should be 2015-16, and the assessing authority cannot go beyond this period.- The assets were inherited and not undisclosed foreign assets, thus not falling under the Act of 2015.- The assessment order was passed without considering the objections regarding jurisdiction.- The petitioners sought a declaration of non-applicability of the Act retrospectively.- Respondents' Arguments:- The writ petitions were not maintainable due to the availability of an alternate remedy of appeal under the Act of 2015.- The petitioners had full knowledge of being beneficial owners of the trust assets but did not disclose them in their income tax returns.- The petitioners failed to provide details regarding the source of funds in the trust.- The assessment order and penalty notices were issued in compliance with the court's directions.vi. Discussion and Analysis:The court discussed the genesis of the Act of 2015, which was enacted to address the issue of black money stashed abroad. The court noted that the Act provided a complete machinery for assessment and appeal, and the petitioners could not bypass this mechanism by filing writ petitions. The court emphasized the rule of self-imposed limitation in exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution when an alternate remedy is available.vii. Conclusion:The court declared that the writ petitions were not maintainable due to the availability of an efficacious and statutory remedy of appeal under Sections 15 and 17 of the Act of 2015. The petitions were dismissed, but the court granted the petitioners liberty to file appeals within one month and directed the appellate authority to consider the appeals on merits without reference to the period of limitation. The court also directed that no punitive action be taken against the petitioners until the appeals were decided.