TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (5) TMI 1690
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... securities in the hands of the appellants apart from the records seized during the course of search which largely are the digital devices like Mobile Phone, PEN Drive, iphone and loose sheets having prints out of the email. 2. The present case pertains to the predicate offence under Section 51 of Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 (in short "the Act of 2015"). The complaint for it was filed by the Income Tax Department before the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta against both the appellants and finding offence under Section 51 of the Act of 2015 to be predicate offence, the search was conducted and thereupon the order of seizure of the documents and freezing of the movable as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the period from June, 2008 to March, 2009 was gathered from Singapore authorities was showing various credit entries in the bank statement of Blue Bell Express Limited. 5. The appellants failed to furnish information relating to the financial interest in the entities located outside India held by them as beneficial owners. Further, certified copy of the KYC document and statement of the bank account No. 171412 with UBS AG Singapore gathered from the Singapore authorities by the Income Tax Department carried their signatures as well as the photocopies of their passports as due diligence documents. 6. The Income Tax Department, thus, calculated Rs. 13,09,09,804/- as undisclosed foreign assets and accordingly imposed tax under the Act of 20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... failed to supply relied upon documents of complaint by the Income Tax Department along with reasons to believe. Thus, in absence of copy of the documents relied by the respondent, the appellants could not defend their case effectively and for that reason also the impugned order deserves to be set-aside. 11. Ld. Counsel for the appellants did not raise any other issue than referred to above, though, they were having opportunity to raise any other legal or factual issue, but the Counsel for the appellants restricted their arguments to the extent indicated above. 12. Ld. Counsel for the respondent contested the appeals and submitted that the case is not made out to cause interference in the impugned order. It is for the reason that the appe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the documents alleged to have not been served. In any case, first plea taken by the appellant is of non-service of complaint of the Income Tax Department which said to have been relied upon for causing the reasons to believe under Section 8(1) of the Act of 2002. The respondent have contested the issue aforesaid and submitted that complaint was available with the appellant as he was facing the prosecution in the hands of the Income Tax Department on the subject matter, yet to delay the proceedings, copy of the complaint was sought. 15. In the light of facts given above, we do not find that the appellant was not served documents relied upon by the respondent. The appellant has alleged that the documents relied by the Income Tax Departmen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r to the Registrar, Adjudicating Authority to inform that the specific relied upon document based on which reasons to believe has been recorded and search was conducted followed by an application under Section 17(4) of the Act of 2002 has not been supplied. A reference of the earlier letter dated 08.12.2022 to provide a copy of the application under Section 17(4) of the Act of 2002 and copies of the relied upon documents which were not supplied along with the Show Cause Notice were given with a request to supply a copy of the documents not served by the respondent. It is, however, with the admission that in response to the letter dated 08.12.2022 copy of the some of relied upon documents were supplied to the appellant on 15.12.2022 i.e. aft....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ties, namely, Excorp Limited and Sharecorp Limited with finance corp Limited respectively, who as per Nominee services Agreement held shares on behalf of Suresh Kumar Banthia and Jitesh Kumar Banthia (c) Certified copy regarding bank account No 171412 of Blue Bell Express Limited maintained with UBS Singapore in which Suresh Kumar Banthia and Jitesh Kumar Banthia had been the attorney and beneficial owners of all the assets deposited in the said Bank Account (d) Name, Date of Birth, Nationality, Permanent address Identity Number, Country, copies of passports of Suresh Kumar Banthia and Jitesh Kumar Banthia account opening forms containing specimen signatures which provided as due diligence were also obtained from Singapore Authorities. ....