TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (7) TMI 588
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the prosecution is that the applicant worked as a General Manager, marketing for SESA GOA Lmt. between 1998 and 2004 and from 2004 to 2009 he worked as General Manager Export for DEMPO Mining Pvt. Ltd. and he was sole director of the company with the nomenclature M/s VENUS BAY OFFSHORE Ltd. His company had foreign bank account with the UBSAG Singapore Bank. In this account 6856092.67 US Dollar (present value in Indian Rupees is 488428041.81) was available. On 04.08.2017 a search and seizure operation was conducted under Section 132 of Income Tax Act. During search and seizure operation the department came to know about several incriminating matters and documents which prima facie pointed out a case of black money under section 55 of the Black Money Act, 2015. 4. The accused/applicant being Indian resident, was required to furnish details of his foreign assets as per Schedule FA of the Income Tax return but from perusal of the ITRs filed by the accused, it was found that these assets and incomes were not disclosed by him in the income tax returns. The record seized during investigation revealed that accused had foreign bank account in Singapore from financial year 2008-09 to 201....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....licable in the financial year 2008-09 to 2013-14 because this Act came into force and is applicable after 01.04.2016. The income of the company VBOL cannot be considered as the income of the applicant since the company was a separate legal entity. The applicant has duly filed the returns of income under the provisions of Section 139 of Income Tax Act. Prior to enforcement of Black Money Act 2015, it was not necessary to disclose the foreign income or assets, therefore, case of willful non disclosure of foreign assets is not made out. It is further submitted that the applicant was non resident in the financial year 2009- 10 to 2010-11, therefore, the dividend income cannot be said to have been deemed to be received in India or having been accrued in India as per the provisions of Section 5 of the Income Tax Act, therefore, it cannot be said that applicant had evaded any income from the disclosure. At that time, even Schedule FA of the Income Tax Act was not even part of the format of the ITR form. It is further submitted that at the time of enforcement of Black Money Act 2015 applicant had no foreign assets in existence, therefore, he was not required to make any disclosure in the B....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by the Court. The applicant is innocent. He has been falsely implicated in the present case, therefore, he may be granted benefit of anticipatory bail. 10. Learned counsel for the non-applicant/Income Tax Department submitted that applicant is the key person of the group and he has worked as General Manager Marketing for SESA GOA Lmt. during 1998-2004. He has also worked as Head Indonesia for PT Dempo Global Resources from 2009- 012, thereafter he started business in partnership with his wife under the partnership firm named M/s Sonic Adventure in Ratibad, Bhopal. Accused has a company M/s Venus Bay Offshore Lmt ( the company resisted in Virgin Island) accused has also a bank account no.1/140924/0004 (renumbered as 820139) in the bank UBSAG Singapore bank in the name of M/s Venus Bay Offshore Lmt. This bank was incorporated on 16.01.2008. It is further submitted that accused did not declare the undisclosed foreign assets as per provision of Section 59 of the BM Act 2015. On 04.08.2017 search and seizure was made under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act at the three premises belonging to accused then department came to know this fact that accused is having foreign bank account and h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ction 85 and 86 of Black Money Act, the Central Government had made this act retrospectively applicable from 01.07.20215 and passed a restrained order. In appeal the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that by the impugned notification the penal provisions were not made retrospective and quashed the interim order passed by the Delhi High Court. 12. It is further submitted that company M/S VBOL is a shell company having no genuine business activities. Accused was the sole beneficiary of the amount deposited in the bank account of the said company. It is further submitted that as per Section 3(1) of the BM Act provides that undisclosed assets located outside India shall be charged to tax on its value in the previous year in which said assets came to notice of the Assessing Officer. He further submitted that any assets acquired or made prior to the commencement of Act which has not been disclosed under the chapter 6 of the Act will be deemed to be acquired in the year in which notice under Section 10 is issued by the Assessing Officer. He has further placed reliance in the case of Rashesh Manhar Bhansali Vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax passed on 02.11.2021 by the Income Tax App....