Case Note & Summary
These eight criminal petitions filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 sought quashing of multiple criminal proceedings pending before the JMFC IV Court, Belagavi. The petitioners—Smt. Dhanashree Ravindra Pandit, Smt. Mangal Arvind Gogte, Shri Arvind Balkrishna Gogte, and Shri Madhav Arvind Gogte—were all family members and office bearers of certain business establishments. The respondent was the Income Tax Department represented by its Deputy Director of Income Tax (Investigation), Unit 1, Belagavi, and Shri Chetan D. Kalamkar. The common allegation against the petitioners was commission of the offence punishable under Section 50 of the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) Imposition of Tax Act, 2015. The facts revealed that during the financial year 2007-08, Gleaming Snow Worldwide Limited was incorporated as a British Virgin Island (BVI) company on 17-03-2008. Subsequently, on 12-05-2009, another BVI company, Oriental Success Universal Corporation, was incorporated. On 12-06-2009, the latter company opened a bank account with UBS, Singapore, and submitted KYC documents and a declaration of beneficial owner's identity as required by Singapore law. Gleaming Snow Worldwide Limited was struck off at BVI. During the financial year 2010-11, on 08-01-2010 and 16-03-2010, amounts of US$16,000 and US$40,000 were credited to the Corporation's account. After the closure of that financial year, the bank account was closed and the Corporation was struck off at BVI on 02-11-2010. The Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 came into force on 01-04-2016. On 14-03-2018, the Government of India issued a notification declaring an officer at Panaji, Goa as the Assessing Officer under the Act. The Assessing Officer issued summons to the petitioners under Section 8 of the Act on 26-03-2018. One of the petitioners gave oral deposition before the respondent on 09-04-2018. Assessment proceedings commenced on 25-06-2018 with a notice under Section 10(1) of the Act for the financial year 2018-19 and assessment year 2019-20. About six months later, two show cause notices were issued to the petitioners, asking them to show cause why prosecution should not be initiated under Sections 50 and 52 of the Act. The petitioners submitted an interim reply on 21-02-2019 and an additional reply on 14-03-2019. The Competent Authority thereafter granted sanction to prosecute the petitioners, following which two complaints were registered before the IV Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class, Belagavi, resulting in the cases sought to be quashed. The extract of the judgment did not include the arguments, the court's analysis, or the final decision.
Issue of Consideration
KAHC020118412019_1
