2023 (4) TMI 201

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....32/2023 & CM Appl.14464/2023[Application filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking interim relief] 2. The petitioner via the above-captioned writ petition has laid a challenge to the notice dated 08.04.2022 issued under Section 10(1) of the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 [hereinafter referred to as, "2015 Act"]. 2.1 Besides this, challenge is also laid to the order dated 10.11.2022 passed by respondent no. 2, whereby the petitioner's application dated 06.09.2022 for dropping proceedings triggered pursuant to the notice issued under Section 10(1) of the 2015 Act, was rejected. 2.2 In addition thereto, challenge is also laid to the show cause notice dated 27.02.2023 issued by the concern....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cation dated 29.10.2015. 6. The order, with regard to the undisclosed foreign assets, referred to two bank accounts maintained with the branches of UBS AG Bank and Barclays Bank located in Singapore. These are said to be maintained in the name of Blackrose Holding Inc. 7. The respondents/revenue, thus, were of the view that the petitioner was ineligible for seeking a declaration under Section 59 of the 2015 Act, in view of provisions of Section 71(d)(iii) of the 2015 Act. 8. To cut the long story short, the petitioner was issued the impugned notice under Section 10(1) of the 2015 Act concerning the Assessment Year (AY) in issue i.e., AY 2022-23 on 08.04.2022. [See Annexure A, appended on page 93 of the case file]. 8.1 In response to the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ilable to him for doing so. (iv) Fourth, the circular dated 06.07.2015 was applicable qua those declarations which were made in good faith. 12. This, then, was followed by the impugned notice dated 27.02.2023. This notice has been issued, as indicated above, under Section 10(3) of the 2015 Act. 13. Mr Ajay Vohra, senior advocate, who appears on behalf of the petitioner says, firstly, in terms of the CBDT circular dated 06.07.2015, the respondents/revenue cannot take recourse to the 2015 Act, having rejected the petitioner's declaration made under Section 59 of the 2015 Act. 13.1. Secondly, Mr Vohra contends that a notice under Section 10(1) of the 2015 Act had to be issued within thirty (30) days of the end of the Financial Year (FY) i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he purview of the 2015 Act. 17. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that, while there can be little doubt that the petitioner made a declaration under Section 59 of the 2015 Act once he became aware of the fact that the authorities had, if not knowledge, then some clue about the fact that he was holding undisclosed assets, there are some issues which still require consideration. 17.1. The first issue that requires consideration, which has both legal and factual connotations, is: when did the respondents/revenue acquire tangible information with regard to the fact that the petitioner had held undisclosed assets? The date on which the respondents/revenue acquired knowledge would then trigger the guidelines t....