TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (6) TMI 23
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The parties 2. The eight Petitioners in W.P.(C) No.1180/2017 are all companies: (1) Strategic Credit Capital Pvt. Ltd. ('SCCPL'), (2) Land Energy and Resources Ltd. ('LERL'), (3) Land Industrial and Infrastructure Ltd. ('LIIL'), (4) Participation Finance and Holding India Pvt. Ltd. ('PFHIPL'), (5) Empell Fortitus Pvt. Ltd. ('EFPL'), (6) Lionforge Intertrade Pvt. Ltd. ('LIPL'), (7) Principal Land Reality and Development Pvt. Ltd. ('PLRDPL'), (8) Exsto Foundation Enterprises and Reserves Ltd. ('EFERL'). It is significant that all these 8 Petitioners have the same address i.e., A-49, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Area, New Delhi - 110044. 3. The Respondents in this petition are Ratnakar Bank Ltd. ('RBL') and the Income Tax Department ('the Department') (Respondents 1 and 2 respectively). 4. In W.P.(C) No.2375/2017, the Petitioner is Ms. Veena Singh. The Respondents are the Director of Income Tax (Investigation)-I ('DIT'), Assistant Director of Income Tax (Investigation), Unit 7(3) ('ADIT'), Income Tax Officer (Investigation), Special Cell ('ITO') and the Bank Manager of RBL (Respondents No. 1 to 4 respectively). Search and survey 5. Both these pe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....traint order under Section 132(3) of the Act was issued directing RBL to not release the bank accounts of 16 persons including the 8 Petitioner companies. 7.3 In para 7 of the writ petition, it is averred that certain letters dated 20th January, 2017 were written by the Petitioner companies to the Department requesting that the restraint order be lifted. It is then averred that "[i]t was clarified that the said entities had no relation to Mr.Mohnish Mohan Mukkar in his personal capacity and that the said person is neither a shareholder nor a Director in the said companies." 7.4 It is submitted that "no action could have been initiated under Section 132(3) without there being any action initiated under Section 132." It is averred that no liability has been established against the Petitioners with there being no tax demand upon them and that even a Show Cause Notice ('SCN') has not been issued. 7.5 It is averred in para 9 that on the evening of 7th February 2017, the Petitioners came to know through messages from the Bank (RBL) that their accounts had been debited by Rs. 37,66,842.50 as per income tax notice and net balance was Re.0. There was another message debiting Rs. 7,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Bank of India, Respondent No.3, was deleted from the array of parties. The petition was then adjourned to for 19th April, 2017. 7.9 On 19th April, 2017, while recording the statement of the counsel for the Respondents that they would be filing their replies by 25th April, 2017, the Court directed the Petitioners in their rejoinder to disclose if they had regularly been filing their Income Tax Returns ('ITRs') and, if so, to enclose copies of the latest ITRs with the rejoinder. Mr. Zoheb Hossain, the learned Senior Standing Counsel in the Department, stated that on 13th April, 2017, a representation has been received by the Department from the Petitioners under the proviso to Section 132B of the Act. He stated that the said representation would be examined and appropriate orders would be filed not later than 2 weeks from that date. The Court directed that a copy of the said decision to be placed on record before the next date and adjourned the case to 17th May, 2017. The interim orders were directed to continue till the next date. 7.10 On 17th May, 2017, the counsel for the Department informed the Court that the above representation of the Petitioners had been disposed of. T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to the Department, this fact was corroborated by the statements recorded on oath by the key associates of Mr. Mukkar, who according to the Department are: (a) Ms. Veena Singh, who is stated to be actively involved in the dayto-day management of various companies controlled by Mr. Mukkar and works closely with him. This, according to the Department, is clear from the seized email backups and phone records. (b) Mr. Venugopal Nair, who is stated to be a Chartered Accountant ('CA') of the group of companies controlled by Mr. Mukkar. An extract of his statement recorded under Section 131 of the Act on 1st February, 2017 and under Section 132(4) of the Act on oath on 4th February, 2017 has been enclosed. (c) Mr. Raj Kumar Sehgal who is stated to be the Company Secretary of the group of companies controlled by Mr. Mukkar. (d) Ms. Deepika Bajaj an employee of EFPL (Petitioner No. 5 in W.P. (C) 1180 of 2017) and looked after the administrative matters of various companies registered at A-49, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Area, Delhi. 9.2 It is stated, however, that in his statements made on oath during the search and survey proceedings, Mr. Mukkar gave false and misleading sta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s further stated in para 4.6.2 of the counter-affidavit in W.P.(C) No.1180 of 2017 that post demonetization there was a cash deposit totalling Rs. 13,43,50,000/- in the bank accounts of three of the Petitioner companies viz., LERL (Petitioner No. 2), LIIL (Petitioner No.3) and LIPL (Petitioner No.6) in their accounts at RBL, Karol Bagh Branch. During the course of survey proceedings at RBL, it was discovered that there were more bank accounts including the rest of the Petitioner companies' accounts. Ms.Veena Singh (a key associate of Mr. Mukkar) was the authorized signatory of bank accounts of these eight companies, and Mr.Mukkar and/or Ms.Kiran Shiv Mukkar (mother of Mr. Mukkar) were the beneficial owners. The details received from RBL are set out in para 4.6.2 of the counter-affidavit as Table-5 and enclosed as Annexure R-9 to the counter-affidavit. 9.6 The Branch Manager of RBL is supposed to have provided information to the Department that Rule 9(1A) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'PML Rules') required every banking company to identify the beneficial owner and to take reasonable steps to verify its identity. It was explained....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re put under restraint under Section 132(3) of the Act on 11th January, 2017. 9.9 As regards the Petitioner companies, it is stated that the books of accounts of none of them was found at their registered office address (A-49, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Area). Mr. Mukkar and Ms. Singh stated on oath that the books of accounts were maintained in Mumbai by Mr. Nair and would be made available to the Department. Mr .Nair in his statement under oath under Section 131 of the Act on 1st February, 2017 denied that the books of accounts were maintained in Mumbai. This was followed by search and survey operation at the residential and office premises of Mr. Nair in Mumbai where he finally admitted that the books of accounts of all the companies controlled by Mr. Mukkar (including the Petitioner companies registered at A-49, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate) were maintained by Mr.Nair at his office in Chembur Naka, Mumbai. The counter-affidavit sets out the relevant portion of the said statement of Mr. Nair. The Department, accordingly, states that there was a wilful and deliberate attempt to prevent the Department from accessing the books of accounts of the Petitioner companies even....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wn to be the Directors of LIIL and LERL, Mr. Jadaun, Mr. Pachauri, Mr. Happy Passi are the Directors of LIPL, Mr. Jadaun and Mr. Ashwani Sehgal are the Directors of EFPL, Mr. Jadaun and Ms. Padmavathy are the Directors of EFERL, Mr. Jadaun and Mr. Pachauri are the Directors of Jemma Consultants and Advisors Pvt. Ltd. ('JCAPL'), Mr. Pachauri and Mr. Sehgal are the Directors of Perpetual Care and Servicing Pvt. Ltd., Mr. Jadaun and Mr. Sehgal are the Directors of PRDPL, and Mr. Jadaun and Ms. Padmavathy are the Directors of SCCPL. 9.14 Since the address mentioned in the PoA for both Mr. Jadaun and Mr. Pachauri was H-II, Madangir, New Delhi, summons under Section 131(1A) of the Act were issued on the above address and field enquiries were also made. This address was found to be incomplete and the correct address was House No.309, H-II, Madangir, New Delhi. Thereafter, submissions were recorded of both Mr. Pachauri and Mr. Jadaun between 27th January, 2017 and 30th January, 2017. 9.15 The Department states that as far as Mr. Pachauri was concerned, he was 24 years old, a Class XII pass and he did not know English; he could only sign his name in English; he got his statement recor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. 9.18 The counter-affidavit of the Department further refers to the fact that on 3rd February, 2017, Mr. Nair appeared and filed belated ITRs for seven of the Petitioner companies. On analysing the data base of the Department it was revealed that the said Petitioner companies had defaulted in filing the ITRs. They had filed them only after the search and survey was conducted by the Department. The details of the filing of the ITRs of the 8 Petitioner companies for the AY 2015-16 onwards have been set out as Table No. 7 in the counter-affidavit. The gross total income of 5 of the companies is Rs. 0. PRDPL is shown to have filed no returns. PFHIPL filed a return for AYs 2015-16 and 2016-17 on 14th February, 2017 disclosing a grand income of Rs. 2,06,46,794 and SCCPL on 2nd February, 2017 for the aforementioned AYs showing a total income of Rs. 20,29,344 and Rs. 16,32,462 respectively. From the Ministry of Corporate Affairs database it was revealed that the Petitioner companies had also defaulted on a regular basis in filing their mandatory forms and details under the Companies Act, 2013. 9.19 It is stated by the Department that pursuant to the summons issued under Section 131....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rs or even the existence of the bank accounts or of the Companies' activities. It is contended that the Petitioners having approached the Department under Section 132B of the Act for lifting of the restraint, the writ petition was not maintainable. According to the Department, since the Directors of the Companies had denied signing the GPA in favour of Mr. Praveen Pandey, the deponent of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the very authenticity and veracity of the said writ petition was in question. 9.23 The Department filed an additional affidavit on 15th May, 2017 enclosing a copy of the order passed on 2nd May, 2017 in the case of PRDPL, 3rd May, 2017 in the case of EFPL, PFHIPL, LIIL, LERL, SSCPL and EFERL, and 4th May, 2017 in the case of LIPL under Section 132B of the Act by the Income Tax Officer. In each of these orders, the request for lifting of the restraint was declined since the source of funds had not been satisfactorily explained and therefore, the funds were unaccounted and unexplained. Thus, there being no outstanding tax liability or pending assessment was 'immaterial'. Each of these orders is a detailed one which need not be further set out in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cting the Bank to pay off the debt to a third party. Further, it is submitted that the manner of attachment and sale of a person's property has been provided in Part 2 of the II Schedule which is to be read with Rule 20 (which requires issuance of a warrant defining the sum to be realized, which is absent in the present case). In terms of Rule 26(1)(c)(i), a debt can be attached only by way of a written order prohibiting the creditor from recovering the debt and the debtor from making payment thereof until further orders of the Taxing recovery Officer. It is stated that there is no power for an actual debit to the bank account and realization of the debt by a third party such as the Department. 10.5 It is submitted by the Petitioners that under the second proviso to Section 132B(1) of the Act, the seizure cannot exist beyond 120 days. Since 120 days have already lapsed from 11th January, 2017, there is no justification for continuing the restraint on the Petitioner's bank account. 10.6 The rejoinder then sets out the details of the (i) the nature of the activities of the Petitioner and the revenue stream; (ii) relevant facts leading to the deposit of cash and search and seizu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r's estate in favour of his son in 2006.Annexure P - 2. As a consequence of this settlement, upon the passing away of Mr. Mohnish Mukkar's father in 2015, who was a foreign resident, Mr. Mohnish Mukkar was not entitled to receive any benefits in India or Overseas. 1.5. In their activist business adventure of asset reconstruction and debt recovery the two groups i.e., NBFC and SPV, following the structure of an asset manager, are advised by Halcyon Asia Support Services Private Limited having its registered office at A-49, Mohan Industrial Co-operative Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi. Mr. Mohnish Mukkar serves as the principal Strategic Advisor to Halcyon Asia Support Services Private Limited." 10.9 The rejoinder sets out elaborately the past business relationship with DHCL and the litigation involving it and seeks to explain the source of the cash of Rs. 15 crores in cash which was received by Petitioner No.4 (PFHIPL), out of which Rs. 13.43 crores was made available by it to Petitioner Nos. 2 (LERL), 3 (LIIL) and 6 (LIPL). In para 8 of the rejoinder as regards Mr. Mukkar, attention is drawn to "ground h of the writ petition, wherein the Petitioners have specifically ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r for lifting the restraint submitted by the AR is an 'admitted fact'. It is also pointed out by the Department in these paras that there is a suppression of the fact of questioning of the Directors of these companies on several dates. In effect, therefore, there is no denial of these averments of the Department. Likewise, the averment in para 5.7 of the Department's counter-affidavit that the Directors of these companies were 'dummy directors' is not answered at all! 10.13. The Petitioners have not filed a rejoinder to the counter-affidavit filed by RBL. The averments in that affidavit, therefore, remain uncontroverted. 11.1 Additionally, Petitioner Nos. 2, 3 and 6 have filed a reply to the Department's additional affidavit. This is again supported by the affidavit of Mr. Praveen Pandey who now gives his address as resident of A-115, South City 2, Gurugram, Haryana. This reply starts by stating that it is "well settled that the Petitioners 2, 3 and 6 received funds and cash from Petitioner No.4 Participation Finance & Holding India Pvt. Ltd." and that it is "undisputed that Petitioners No. 2, 3 and 6deposited the cash, which was reflected in their boo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2015-2016 and was set aside to be utilized for another restructuring transaction that involved payments to labours and contractors that were ordinarily paid in cash." In para 6 of this reply, it is stated that "Mr. Shakti Singh by a sworn affidavit realistically contextualizes his responses to the ADIT and provides further documentation regarding the account confirmation(s) pertaining to the cash deposit. Which, evidence, interestingly has already been provided to ADIT in charge on numerous occasions, but, has not been taken on record. Annexure." There is in fact no such Annexure. In para 7 of this rejoinder statement, it is averred that DCHL had clearly "evaded the question posed by the Department in order to avoid other sanctions or reopen a criminal case, which they desperately want closed." 11.6 A reference is made to the written confirmations/sworn affidavits by Mr. T. Venkattram Reddy, the Chairman of DCHL, in proceedings in this Court and in arbitration proceedings. It is averred, therefore, that this evidence being relied upon by Respondent No.2 was completely in apposite to the other uncontroversial record placed before Respondent No. 2 and, therefore, cannot form the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al proceedings." 11.9 At the end of the document is a purported signature which could be of Mr. Shakti Singh Jadaun above a line which is titled as 'name of affiant'. This document has two witnesses and is notarised by Mr. Kamlesh Sharma with his registration no. 2630. There is another document which is the certified true copy of resolution of the board meeting of PFHIPL held on 10th May, 2017, again notarised by Mr. Kamlesh Sharma on 19th May, 2017. It is signed by Shakti Singh Jadaun. There is a further resolution dated 8th February, 2017 passed in the meeting of PFHIPL held on 16th January, 2017 authorising Mr. Pandey to execute documents etc. This, too, has been notarised by Mr. Kamlesh Sharma on 19th May, 2017. There is another similar 'Affidavit & Ratification' as well as a copy of the board resolution in respect of EFPL dated 10th May, 2017 signed by Mr. Jadaun. 11.10 Another document titled 'Affidavit & Ratification' on behalf of LIPL has purportedly been executed by Mr. Lokesh Pachauri (Affiant No. 1) and Mr. Ram Murti Kumar (Affiant No. 2) stating that an additional board resolution was provided to Mr. Pandey on 10th May, 2017. This has also been attested by Mr. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hereto, RBL debited the accounts of the 9 companies and prepared the DDs amounting to Rs. 23.14 crores. The information of debit of account of the 9 companies was received through SMS by the companies. She refers to the fact that W.P.(C) No. 1180 of 2017 was filed by the companies (in fact there are only 8 companies which filed the writ petition. One of them, SCCL, has two bank accounts). A reference is also made to the interim order passed by this Court on 9th February, 2017. 12.3 Ms. Singh states that on 2nd March, 2017, her premises was searched, the almirah was opened, the contents thereof (cash of Rs. 6,02,000/-) was seized and the same almirah was put under restraint under Section 132(3) of the Act. In the evening of 10th March, 2017 Ms. Singh received an automated SMS from RBL intimating withdrawal of funds from savings accounts in the sum of Rs. 77,53,177/-. She contends that all the actions were taken in haste by the Department with no outstanding tax liabilities/pending assessment demand against her and, therefore, it was without the authority of law. 12.4 Para 3 of the writ petition sets out the grounds. These are more or less on the same lines as in W.P.(C) No. 11....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ous dates were provided to her thereafter. It was found that she had wilfully suppressed information about her financial interest and directorship/shareholdings in several companies based in Hong Kong and British Virgin Islands as well as her role in managing these companies and her authorised signatory status for some of the bank accounts located in Singapore. These details were withheld by her in her statement recorded on oath on 11th January, 2017 and in her preliminary statement under Section 131 of the Act. 13.3 The Department states that her AR submitted that Rs. 2 crores were received as a personal loan from EFERL. However, this was not supported by any documents like a Loan Agreement etc. The confirmation on behalf of EFERL was signed by Mr. Praveen Pandey as AR. The Directors of EFERL were Ms. Padmavathy and Mr. Jadaun. Mr. Jadaun had in his statement on 30th January, 2017 denied signing any GPA in favour of Mr. Pandey. The confirmation of having given the loan to her was signed by Mr. Pandey. Since the source of money lying in the account of EFERL, PFHIPL and EFPL could not be satisfactorily explained by those companies, the money was seized; and the money lying in Ms.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the Department, that with there being deliberate suppression of material facts, both the petitions should be dismissed with exemplary costs. The fact that Mr. Mohnish Mohan Mukkar was the beneficial owner of the Petitioner companies as per the records of RBL was not only not disclosed in the petitions but a clear attempt was made to mislead the Court that these companies had nothing to do with Mr. Mohnish Mohan Mukkar. 16. Mr. Kaushik also referred to the fact that the statement of Mr. Jadaun and Mr. Pachauri denying that they had signed a GPA authorising Mr. Pandey raised serious doubts whether Mr. Pandey could have sworn to the affidavit in support of the petition. He pointed out that it was now sought to be projected that Mr. Praveen Pandey was authorised by the GPA dated 18th January, 2017 and a board resolution dated 8th February, 2017. Although the stamp paper is dated 19th May, 2017, the document has been signed by Mr. Jadaun on 18th May, 2017. 17. A reference was made by Mr. Kaushik to Section 85 of the Evidence Act, 1872 ('EA') under which the Court presumes that every document pertaining to a PoA is genuine if it has been e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (1998) 230 ITR 349 (HC) (Patna), Jagdishprasad M. Joshi v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (2005) 273 ITR 296 (HC) (Bom), Dheer Singh v. Assistant Director of Income Tax (1998) 230 ITR 343 (All.), Visa Comtrade Limited v. UOI (2011) 338 ITR 343 (Orissa), Raj Kumar v. Union of India (2000) 242 ITR 584 (P&H), Windson Electronics Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (2004) 269 ITR 481 (Cal.) and Puspa Ranjan Sahoo v. Assistant Director of Income Tax (2012) 252 CTR 113 (Orissa) to urge that during the course of the search there could not be an attachment of the assets of a person other than the searched person much less any direction issued that the money lying in any bank account should be transferred to the Department. Unless the tax liability is finally quantified, an Assessing Officer ('AO') could only retain in his capacity such assets as in his opinion would satisfy the amounts referred to in Clauses 2and 3 of Section 132. He submitted that the said provision did not confer any authority to release assets and to convert them into cash. 22. Mr. Lakshmikumaran, learned counsel appearing for Ms. Veena Singh, reiterated the stand taken by her in the writ ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er furnished a declaration of beneficial interest disclosing the sole and exclusive interest of Master Jeh Mohnish Mukkar through Ms. Kiran Shiv Mohan, grandmother, by the declaration acknowledged by RBL on 21st June, 2016. A reference is made to a letter dated 1st May, 2017 addressed by Mr. Drone Sharma, Advocate to RBL to substitute the name of Master Jeh Mohnish Mukkar as the beneficial owner. It is stated that "since as per the requirements of the Bank, a minor could not be described as a beneficial owner, the Bank suo motu added the names of Mrs. Kiran Shiv Mohan and/or Mr. Mohnish Mukkar as beneficial owners, as per the e-mail trail." A reference is made to some exchanges of SMS' between one Mr. Anuj Mehra, a representative of RBL and Mr. Mohnish Mohan Mukkar about Master Jeh Mohnish Mukkar being the beneficial owner. 26. The attempt in this note of factual submissions is to show that the bank accounts of the Petitioners cannot be regarded as benami of Mr. Mukkar and that each of these companies has a separate legal existence and that Mr. Mukkar has no personal ownership interest nor is he in charge of the affairs of the Petitioners in a fiduciary or advisory capacity. It ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ukkar or that such satisfaction note does not meet the requirement of the law. This is understandable considering that both sets of Petitioners were, in the first instance, when they approached this Court, desperate to demonstrate how they have nothing to do with Mr. Mukkar. 31. As far as the 8 Petitioner companies in W.P. (C) No. 1180 of 2017 are concerned, they asserted in paras 5 and 7 of the writ petition that "the said entities have no relation to Mr. Mohnish Mohan Mukkar in his personal capacity, and Mr. Mukkar is neither a shareholder nor a Director in the said companies". The Petitioners presumed they were being clever by using the words 'personal capacity' and adding that Mr. Mukkar was neither a shareholder nor a Director in their companies. That these disclaimers were made with a view to mislead the Court into believing that the Petitioner had nothing to do with Mr. Mukkar is apparent in light of the details provided by RBL to the Department which show that in the nine accounts maintained with RBL of these 8 companies, Mr. Mukkar is Beneficial Owner No.1 in eight of them and his mother in the ninth account. 32. Even after the Department pointed this out and set out....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... with Mr. Mukkar "in his personal capacity". The fact that he may neither be a shareholder nor a Director in any of them is of little significance when in fact he is Beneficial Owner No.1 in their bank accounts. Their mere dismissal of the details available in the records of RBL as being 'incorrect' is without basis and cannot enable them to escape the consequences of making false and misleading statements on affidavit on more than one occasion in these proceedings. 36. The brazenness of the conduct of the Petitioners in W.P. (C) No. 1180 of 2017 is even more evident when they pose the query in their rejoinder - "Without prejudice, and assuming that to be so, the question is then what?" If this is the understanding of a litigant of the duty they owe to the Court, then they require to be reminded that there is no excuse for a litigant not to be utterly truthful and place before it all the facts within their knowledge. This attempt by the Petitioners to obtain interim orders by speaking halftruths and misleading the Court about material facts simply cannot be countenanced. 37. As already noticed hereinbefore, there is not even an attempt by the Petitioners to deal with, leave a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Mr. Mukkar. The crucial link for the purposes of Section 132(1) of the Act appears to be provided by Ms. Singh herself in the casual approach taken by her in her rejoinder and the written submissions. 41. Ms. Singh admits to being associated with at least one of the companies in her professional capacity. She should be aware of the consequences of suppressing the fact that she is authorized signatory No.1 of the bank accounts of all 8 companies with RBL. And in these bank accounts, Mr. Mukkar is Beneficial Owner No.1. The suppression of these material facts, which were within her knowledge, in her petition is, therefore, not excusable. 42. It is sought to be suggested by Mr. Chidambaram that the writ petitions were drafted in a hurry. However, if that were true then in the rejoinder affidavits filed by both sets of Petitioners some attempt ought to have been made to justify their missing out the material facts in the main petition. On the contrary, both rejoinders only serve to confirm the deliberate suppression of material facts by both sets of Petitioners. 43. The suppression of material facts by both Petitioners in W.P. (C) 1180 of 2017 and 2375 of 2017 cannot but be vi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... held: "The High Court is exercising discretionary and extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226of the Constitution. Over and above, a Court of Law is also a Court of Equity. It is, therefore, of utmost necessity that when a party approaches a High Court, he must place all the facts before the Court without any reservation. If there is suppression of material facts on the part of the applicant or twisted facts have been placed before the Court, the Writ Court may refuse to entertain the petition and dismiss it without entering into merits of the matter." 48. In the present case, both Petitioners not only suppressed material facts in their petitions in the first place, but after this was pointed out in the Department's counter-affidavit, the Petitioners were most casual in their response thereto making no attempt to justify the suppression of such material facts. In fact, the length of the respective rejoinders in both petitions only serves to demonstrate the extent to which material facts within the knowledge of the Petitioners were not placed before the Court in the first instance. 49. The above findings by themselves are sufficient to dismiss both petitions with exemp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y or other valuable article or thing found as a result of such search;" (v) "place marks of identification on any books of account or other documents or make or cause to be made extracts or copies therefrom;" (vi) "make a note or an inventory of any such money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing." 53. For the purposes of the present petitions, the emphasis would be on the expression "any money" and "other valuable article or thing". The context in which these words occur cannot possibly exclude money in a bank account. The contention that this could only mean 'cash' and not money in a bank account may be an attractive argument but not in the context in which the above expression occurs. It is certainly a valuable thing. In other words, a sum in a bank account is not outside the ambit of Section 132(1) of the Act and can be subject to search and seizure. 54. As already noticed, a person could be in possession of undisclosed income not only in his or her own account but in someone else's account. In the context of the present petitions, therefore, when pursuant to the search warrant, the Department proceeded to search and seize not only valuable ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n this case was but a logical corollary of the search action and permissible under the Act. Consequently, even on merits, not even a prima facie case has been made out by either of the Petitioners. 59. The Court, however, clarifies that the above observations on merits is only in order to deal with the submissions made by the Petitioners at this stage and is not intended to influence the further proceedings in the matter including the assessment proceedings and thereafter. Those will be decided on merits uninfluenced by the above prima facie observations. Conclusion 60. For the aforementioned reasons, the interim order dated 9th February, 2017 passed by this Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1180 of 2017 and the interim order dated 14th March, 2017 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 2375 of 2017 which have continued thereafter are hereby vacated. Both these writ petitions are dismissed with costs of Rs. 1 lakh each which will be paid by the Petitioners to the Department within four weeks from today. Proceedings under Section 340 Cr PC 61. The Court is satisfied that the conditions exist for initiation of action under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('C....