Need Tally
for Clients?

Contact Us! Here

  Tally Auditor

License (Renewal)
  Tally Gold

License Renewal

  Tally Silver

License Renewal
  Tally Silver

New Licence
  Tally Gold

New Licence
 
Open DEMAT Account with in 24 Hrs and start investing now!
From the Courts »
Open DEMAT Account in 24 hrs
 Inordinate delay in income tax appeal hearings
 Income Tax leviable on Tuition Fee in the Year of Rendering of Services: ITAT
 Supreme Court invoked its power under Article 142 of Constitution to validate notices issued under section 148 as notices issued under section 148A. However the same shall be subject to amended provisions of section 149.
 ITAT refuses to stay tax demand on former owner of Raw Pressery brand
 Bombay HC sets aside rejection of refund claims by GST authorities
 [Income Tax Act] Faceless Assessment Scheme does not take away right to personal hearing: Delhi High Court
 Rajasthan High Court directs GST Authority to Unblock Input Tax Credit availed in Electronic Credit Ledger
 Sebi-taxman fight over service tax dues reaches Supreme Court
 Delhi High Court Seeks Status Report from Centre for Appointments of Chairperson & Members in Adjudicating Authority Under PMLA
 Delhi High Court allows Income Tax Exemption to Charitable Society running Printing Press and uses Profit so generated for Charitable Purposes
 ITAT accepts Lease Income as Business Income as Business Investments were mostly in nature of Properties

Moin A Qureshi vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central)-Ii And Another
August, 29th 2018
$~

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                       WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 4824/2017

                                         Reserved on :         2nd May, 2018
                                         Date of decision: 28th August, 2018

       MOIN A QURESHI                                    ..... Petitioner
                    Through:           Mr. R.K. Handoo, Mr. Yoginder
                                       Handoo, Mr. Aditya Chaudhary, Mr.
                                       Manish Shukla & Mr. Nishant
                                       Kumar, Advocates.

                            versus

       COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-II AND
       ANOTHER                             ..... Respondents
                   Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Sr. Standing
                            Counsel.

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR


CHANDER SHEKHAR, J.:

       This writ petition by Moin A. Qureshi (the petitioner for short) assails
the order dated 12th May, 2017 under Section 245D(2C) of the Income Tax
Act, 1961 (Act, for short) whereby the Income Tax Settlement Commission,



W.P.(C) No. 4824/2017                                               Page 1 of 52
New Delhi (ITSC, for short) has rejected the settlement application filed by
the petitioner as invalid.
2.     This is the third round of litigation in the High Court from orders
passed by the ITSC. The petitioner had earlier filed Writ Petition (C) No.
4900/2015 challenging order of the ITSC dated 24th February, 2015 and
Writ Petition (C) No. 8101/2015 impugning orders of the ITSC dated 4th
June,2015 and 26th June,2105, which petitions were allowed by the High
Court vide the orders dated 18th May,2015 and 13th April,2017,
respectively, with remand to the ITSC for a fresh decision.
3.     To curtail prolixity, we would refer to only relevant and material
facts. The petitioner, it is claimed and stated, was/is engaged in business of
manufacture and export of omasum and cattle casing, by-products of animal
husbandry, as a sole proprietor of M/s Abdul Majeed Qureshi. Petitioner is
also a director in AMQ Agro India Private Limited (AMQ Agro, for short),
in which he and his wife Nasreen Moin Qureshi, hold majority (85%)
shares. AMQ was/is entirely engaged in exports and its registered office
was/is the residence of the petitioner located at C-134, Defence Colony,
New Delhi.
4.     On 15th February, 2014, search and seizure operations under Section
132 of the Act were conducted at various business and residential premises
of the petitioner. The search had concluded on 19th April, 2014. Survey
under Section 133A of the Act was also carried out at different premises.



W.P.(C) No. 4824/2017                                              Page 2 of 52
5.     During the course of search, various documents, cash and jewellery
were seized. Statements of the petitioner, his family members, employees
and directors of associate companies were recorded under Section 132(4) of
the Act. The petitioner had surrendered Rs.20 crores before Investigation
Wing of the Income Tax Department on 21st April, 2014.
6.     Consequent to search, tax cases of the petitioner, his family members
and associate companies were centralised before the Deputy Commissioner
of Income Tax, Central Circle-19, New Delhi, the respondent No. 2 before
us.
7.     The respondent No.2 had thereupon issued notices under Section
153A of the Act dated 13th October, 2014, calling upon the petitioner to file
returns for the Assessment Years (AY, for short) 2008-09 to 2013-14. The
petitioner, it is stated, had filed returns on or about 4th December, 2014.
8.     On 5th December, 2014, the petitioner, his wife Nasreen Moin
Qureshi, AMQ Agro and his two employees Mohd. Shahnawaz and Aditya
Sharma had moved applications under Section 245C(1) of the Act before the
ITSC. These applications were, however, withdrawn with liberty to file
fresh applications vide order dated 18th December, 2014 passed by the ITSC.
The petitioner and four others mentioned above had thereafter filed fresh
applications before the ITSC under Section 245C of the Act on 26 th
December, 2014 for the AYs 2008-09 to 2014-15, the period for which
notices under Section 153A of the Act had been issued.



W.P.(C) No. 4824/2017                                                Page 3 of 52
9.     The applications filed by the petitioner and others were admitted by
the ITSC vide order dated 7th January, 2014 under Section 245D(1) of the
Act.
10.    On 10th February, 2015, the first respondent, the Commissioner of
Income Tax(Central) II, Delhi had filed a report under Section 245D(2B) of
the Act asserting and praying that the settlement application of the petitioner
should be declared as invalid as there was failure to make full and true
disclosure of undisclosed income and the manner in which the undisclosed
income was earned.
11.    On 19th February, 2015, hearing was held before the ITSC for the
purpose of passing of order under Section 245D(2C) of the Act. In the post-
lunch hearing, the respondents had filed before the ITSC a set of documents
running into 260 pages.
12.    As per the respondents, arguments were addressed by the parties
before the ITSC on 20th February, 2015 also. The petitioner, however,
claims that arguments were heard in the cases of petitioner and AMQ Agro
on 19th February, 2015 and arguments in the remaining group of cases
including that of Nasreen Moin Qureshi were heard on 20th February, 2015.
13.    The ITSC vide common order dated 24th February, 2015 admitted
applications for settlement filed by AMQ Agro, Mohd. Shahnawaz and
Aditya Sharma for further consideration, but applications filed by the
petitioner and Nasreen Moin Qureshi were rejected on the ground of failure
to make full and true disclosure of undisclosed income and the manner in

W.P.(C) No. 4824/2017                                               Page 4 of 52
which the undisclosed income was earned. This order in the case of the
petitioner had primarily referred to the documents relied upon by the
Respondents relating to property located at 4, Chesterfield House, South
Audley, Mayfair, London (London property, for short) and the records and
documents received from Singapore Tax Authorities and UK Tax
Authorities under the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement. We shall
subsequently refer to these documents.
14.    Aggrieved, the petitioner had filed Writ Petition (C) No. 4900/2015
before this High Court, which was allowed vide short order dated 18 th May,
2015 on the ground that the Respondents had submitted additional set of
documents running into 260 pages during the course of hearing before the
ITSC on 19th February, 2015. The ITSC, it was observed, had passed the
order dated 24th February, 2015 without further hearing apart from hearing
conducted on the next date on 20th February, 2015, which included hearing
in other group of cases. The Division Bench noted that in the order dated
24th February, 2015, the ITSC had relied upon the documents filed by the
Respondents on 19th February, 2015. However, the High Court also
observed that the documents filed on 19th February, 2015 constituted a part
of the report which the Commissioner, i.e. the second respondent, had
initially filed on 10th February, 2015. Nevertheless, the High Court felt that
as adequate opportunity had not been granted to the petitioner to respond to
these documents, an opportunity of hearing should be given. Accordingly,
the order dated 24th February, 2015 was set aside with direction to the ITSC

W.P.(C) No. 4824/2017                                              Page 5 of 52
to render its decision at the stage of Section 245D(2C) of the Act within ten
days from the date of first hearing, which was fixed on 25 th May, 2015.
Before the said date, the petitioner was to submit his response to the
documents. The petitioner did not take plea of limitation with regard to
additional documents filed on 19th February, 2015 and the documents, it was
observed, would be construed to be a part of original report dated 10 th
February, 2015. The Court had clarified having not expressed any opinion
on merits and that setting aside of the order dated 24th February, 2015 shall
not come in the way of the ITSC taking a view on the matter.
15.    Thereafter, the ITSC vide order dated 4th June, 2015 under Section
245D(2C) of the Act held that the settlement application filed by the
petitioner was invalid for various reasons, including failure to make full and
true disclosure of undisclosed income with reference to the London property
and two foreign bank accounts of M/s Barro Holdings Limited and M/s
Bulova Holding Limited in the BSI Bank Limited, Singapore, of which the
petitioner was a beneficial and the de facto owner. The respondents had
thereafter filed an application for rectification in the case of the petitioner,
stating that there was a factual mistake and error in paragraph 15.10 of the
order dated 4th June, 2015. We shall refer to this order and the correction
made by the ITSC subsequently. Suffice at this stage, is to record and notice
that the application for rectification was allowed ex parte by the ITSC vide
order dated 26th June, 2015.



W.P.(C) No. 4824/2017                                                Page 6 of 52
16.    Orders dated 4th June, 2015 and 26th June, 2015 became subject matter
of challenge in Writ Petition (C) No. 8101/2015, which petition was allowed
vide order dated 13th April, 2017 with an order of remand to the ITSC for a
fresh decision. We shall be subsequently referring to this order in some
detail as the assertion of the petitioner is that the ITSC has not complied
with the directions in this order and has misconstrued the same.
17.    Pursuant to the second order of the remand, the ITSC has now passed
the order dated 12th May, 2017, which order holds that the petitioner had
failed to make full and true disclosure and, therefore, the settlement
application was rejected as invalid under Section 245D(2C) of the Act. The
case of the petitioner for the AYs 2009-10 to 2013-14 have been sent to the
Assessing Officer for adjudication and passing assessment orders.
18.    We would first refer and examine the primary argument of the
petitioner, that the impugned order completely disregards and is contrary to
the earlier order of the High Court dated 13th April, 2017 passed in Writ
Petition (C) No. 8101/2015 by which orders of the ITSC dated 4th June,
2015 and 26th June, 2015 had been set aside. In order to consider the said
contention and decide the plea, we would like to reproduce relevant portions
of the judgment dated 13th April, 2017 passed in Writ Petition (C) No.
8101/2015, which reads:-
             4. The matter then went back to the ITSC. It appears
            that within four days of the passing of the above order
            by this Court, the Petitioner tendered a written note of
            submissions dated 22nd May, 2015 before the ITSC.
            The Department appears to have objected to the ITSC
W.P.(C) No. 4824/2017                                                  Page 7 of 52
            considering this written note of submissions. This is
            evident from para 13.2 of the impugned order. In para
            13.3 of the impugned order dated 4th June, 2015 the
            ITSC observed as under:
               13.3. We have considered the submissions made
               by the AR and the CIT. The Hon`ble High Court
               has remitted the matter back to us to allow an
               opportunity to the applicant to give his
               submissions on the entire 260 pages (rest being
               forwarding letters) which we find relate to the
               bank accounts at Singapore and the Flat at
               London. The Commission does not have to travel
               beyond the directions of the Hon`ble High Court
               referred at para 13.2.3 above which unequivocally
               stated that the said writ petition is allowed to the
               aforesaid extent....
            5. Mr. Handoo, the learned counsel for the Petitioner,
            submitted that the above written submissions were not
            considered by the ITSC. This appears to be correct.
            The Court is unable to find in what manner in the
            impugned order has the ITSC considered those
            submissions. The said submissions are significant in
            view of the two factors adverted to by the ITSC in the
            impugned order which weighed with it in reiterating its
            conclusion that the Petitioner had not made a full and
            true disclosure of all facts within his knowledge. In this
            connection a reference needs to be made to para
            14.3(a) of the impugned order where the ITSC adverts
            to the two pieces of information that apparently was
            received by the Department on 20th February, 2015
            and 12th March, 2015. Para 14.3 of the impugned
            order of the ITSC reads as under:


W.P.(C) No. 4824/2017                                                    Page 8 of 52
               14.3 (a) The issue before us is whether the
               information received by the Department dated
               12.03.2015 by the JS (FT & TR), CBDT and by
               the DIT (Investigation) on 20.02.2015 relating to
               the bank account opened/ operated by the
               applicant is to be taken into consideration during
               the present proceeding or not. It is the submission
               of the Department that these two informations are
               very vital to determine the truth in the matter and
               it will be fatal on the part of the Commission to
               ignore the same. It is also the submission of the
               Department that these two letters relate only to
               the issue of the bank account and the flat at
               London which are in consideration and remitted
               by the Hon`ble High Court to the Commission.
               (b) We agree with the submissions made by the
               Department that these two informations submitted
               by the Department dated 25.05.2015 with the
               Commission and received by the Department
               subsequent dated 19.02.2015 helps the
               Commission to determine whether the disclosure
               made by the applicant is full and true or not.
               Hence these documents require to be considered
               and the applicant can very well give his
               comments on these documents....
            6. Then from para 15.1 onwards, both the pieces of
            information are discussed in extenso by the ITSC. In
            para 15.17 the conclusion drawn by it, as regards the
            opening of an account, reads as under:
                15.17. If there was a POA (Power of Attorney)
               arrangement between Mr. Yusuf Mehboob Khan
               and MR. Qureshi, it was a legal obligation of Mr.
               Qureshi to provide the alleged POA to the bank,
W.P.(C) No. 4824/2017                                                Page 9 of 52
               as the Bank was interested in knowing the profile,
               background and business interests only of the
               Real Client` and not of an attorney of a client.
               Thus, the POA and the balance sheets of Barro
               and Bulova produced in support of ownership of
               these entities by Mr. Yusuf Mehboob Khan are an
               afterthought. It is noted that these documents
               have already been considered and not accepted by
               the Commission in the earlier order dated
               24.02.2015....
            7. The next paragraph i.e. para 15.18 deals with
            purchase of the property in London in respect of which
            the conclusion drawn by the ITSC reads as under:
                ... 15.18. Another very important document
               which is relied by the Department is an
               Annexure-C of the submission dated 25.05.2015
               of the CIT at page 55 which is an indemnity
               signed by the applicant Mr. Qureshi to the Board
               of Directors of Bulova authorising them to
               purchase the property being Flat NO. 4,
               Chesterfield House, South Audley Street, London
               for purchase price of GBP 38,50,000/-. This
               indemnity also authorized Board of Directors to
               appoint Solicitor Mischan de Raya for purchase
               of this property at London. This further
               establishes that the applicant Mr. Qureshi is the
               real owner of that flat. Besides that there are lots
               of e-mails which are part of the submission made
               by the CIT in their earlier submission and earlier
               hearing on 10.02.2015 and 19.02.2015 where the
               approval of artefacts and other furnishing
               including the carpets have been done by the
               applicant for which e-mails have been sent to

W.P.(C) No. 4824/2017                                                 Page 10 of 52
               employees of Sh. Qureshi for his approval. This
               also corroborates the fact of Sh. Moin Akhtar
               Qureshi being the real owner of the flat at London
               and not a power of attorney holder only as it is the
               real owner who normally approves/ decides, now
               and with what his flat is to be furnished and not
               the power of attorney holder....
            8. What happened before the ITSC after the passing of
            impugned the order dated 4th June, 2015 is interesting.
            It appears that an application was filed, apparently,
            under Section 154 read with Section 245D(2C) of the
            Act` by the Pr. CIT- Central-II on 12th June, 2015
            seeking correction of a factual discrepancy that
            occurred in para 15.10 of the order dated 4th June,
            2015. In order to appreciate what the correction sought
            was, it is necessary to set out para 15.10 of the order
            dated 4th June, 2015, which reads as under:
               15.10. All the Bank Account opening forms
               were signed by Shri Moin Qureshi and his
               address mentioned is C 134 Defence Colony,
               New Delhi ­ 110024, India as seen from page 18
               and 19 of pages marked as 7 to 49 received from
               Singapore authorities. The copies of the passport
               of Shri Qureshi were enclosed by Singapore
               authorities.
                The CIT(DR) argued that Shri Moin Akhtar
               Qureshi is the beneficial owner of account No.
               6CO3122 held by Barro Holdings Ltd. (Barro)
               with BSI Bank Ltd. Singapore in Form A and that
               this account was opened on 22.07.2011 and
               closed on 19.04.2013...


W.P.(C) No. 4824/2017                                                 Page 11 of 52
            9. The correction now sought was that the
            acknowledgement of the fact that the bank account
            opening forms for both Barro Holdings Ltd. and
            Bulova Holdings Ltd. were not signed by Sh. Moin
            Akhtar Qureshi but by Arcas Holdings Ltd. the
            authorized signatory and a director of Barro and
            Bulova`. The important change which was sought by
            the Pr. CIT himself was for the ITSC to now
            acknowledge that there did exist a Power of Attorney
            (POA) on record which is now enclosed by the Pr. CIT
            with its application seeking the correction.
            10. This application by the Pr. CIT was heard by the
            ITSC in the absence of any notice to the Petitioner. The
            ITSC accepted the application and by its subsequent
            order dated 26th June, 2015 corrected para 15.10 to
            read thus:
                15.10. The power of attorney for the
               management of assets was signed by M/s Arcas
               Holding Ltd. and Shri Moin Qureshi and his
               address mentioned is C 134 Defence Colony,
               New Delhi ­ 110024, Indas as seen from page 18
               and 19 of pages marked as 7 to 49 received from
               Singapore authorities. The copies of the passport
               of Shri Qureshi were enclosed by Singapore
               authorities.
               The CIT(DR) argued that Shri Moin Akhtar
               Qureshi is the beneficial owner of account No.
               6CO3122 held by Barro Holdings Ltd. (Barro)
               with BSI Bank Ltd. Singapore in Form A and that
               this account was opened on 22.07.2011 and
               closed on 19.04.2013....







W.P.(C) No. 4824/2017                                                  Page 12 of 52
            11. As a result of the above correction in para 15.10 the
            conclusion that the Petitioner had not made a full and
            true disclosure of the facts in respect of the above
            account, completely changed. There was now an
            acknowledgement by the ITSC that there was no
            failure to make a full and true disclosure by the
            Petitioner as far as the above bank account was
            concerned.
            12. The question that next arises is whether the above
            change brought about to the order dated 4th June, 2015
            by the subsequent order dated 26th June, 2015 would
            have an impact on the main conclusion drawn by the
            ITSC in its order dated 4th June, 2015, that the
            Petitioner did not make a full and true disclosure of all
            facts. It will be recalled that there were two pieces of
            information which were brought before the ITSC by
            the Department in the second round to persuade the
            ITSC to hold that there was no full and true disclosure
            by the Petitioner; one was regarding the bank account
            and the other was regarding the property at London. As
            regards the property at London, the case of the
            Petitioner is that he offered further explanation before
            the ITSC by his written submissions dated 15th May,
            2015 enclosing certain documents and that was never
            considered by the ITSC.
            13. Neither the conclusion in para 15.18 of the order
            dated 4th June, 2015 or in any other portion of the said
            order, have the above written submissions of the
            Petitioner dated 22nd May, 2015 been discussed.
            14. The Court is of the considered view that the ITSC
            ought to have, in the first instance, put the Petitioner on
            notice if it was going to entertain an application by the
            Department seeking correction` of its order. It is one
W.P.(C) No. 4824/2017                                                     Page 13 of 52
            thing to state that the said correction` was in fact
            beneficial to the Petitioner since the allowing of the
            application meant that the Petitioner's case that there
            was no failure by him to make a full and true
            disclosure of facts pertaining to the bank account was
            in fact accepted by the ITSC. But there is also merit in
            the contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner
            that had the Petitioner known of the application, the
            Petitioner may have been able to persuade the ITSC
            even as regards the other errors` which according to
            the Petitioner vitiate the impugned order dated 4th June
            2015. Whether in fact the ITSC may have been
            persuaded or not is not the point. The fact remains that
            an order passed by the ITSC cannot be sought to be
            corrected` by it without putting both parties to the
            order to notice. The procedure adopted by the ITSC of
            passing an order ex parte, correcting an earlier order, is
            not acceptable to the Court.
            15. The Court is of the considered view that the ITSC
            should again undertake the exercise that it was
            expected to undertake pursuant to the order passed by
            this Court on 18th May, 2015 in WP(C) No.
            4900/2015. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 4th
            June, 2015 read with the order dated 26th June, 2015
            are hereby set aside. The result would be that the
            exercise that was to be undertaken by the ITSC as a
            result of the order passed by this Court on 18th May,
            2015 will have to be undertaken by it afresh. This time
            round there will be no further documents filed either by
            the Department or by the Petitioner. On the basis of the
            existing documents, the ITSC will, after giving
            opportunity of being heard to both the parties, pass a
            fresh decision on merits, in accordance with law. The


W.P.(C) No. 4824/2017                                                    Page 14 of 52
            ITSC will pass an order uninfluenced by any of its
            earlier orders that have been set aside by this Court.

19.    We have reproduced the entire reasoning in the order on record dated
13th April, 2017 in the aforesaid quotation so as to appreciate and understand
the contention raised and our reasons. Paragraph 5 of the aforesaid quotation
refers to the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that written
submissions had not been considered, which it was observed appeared to be
correct for the ITSC had not set out the manner in which those submissions
were considered. Thereafter, reference was made to the information received
by the Revenue and relied upon in relation to the bank accounts and the
property at London. Paragraph 6 of the said order states that information
received had been discussed in extenso by the ITSC before drawing their
conclusion and findings in paragraphs 15.17 and 15.18.
20.    Thereafter, reference was made to the rectification application filed
by the respondents, purportedly for correction of factual mistake and error in
paragraph 15.10 of the order dated 4th June, 2015, which had recorded that
the bank account opening forms were signed by the petitioner, i.e., Moin
Akhar Qureshi and his address was mentioned as C-134, Defence Colony,
New Delhi as was seen from papers received from the Singapore authorities,
including the passport. Paragraph 9 of the order dated 13th April, 2017
observes that the account opening forms of M/s Barro Holdings Limited and
M/s Bulova Holdings Limited were signed by M/s Arcas Holdings Limited,



W.P.(C) No. 4824/2017                                                Page 15 of 52
the authorised signatory and director of the two companies and not by the
petitioner, i.e., Moin Akhtar Qureshi.
21.    For the time being, we would skip the observations made by the
Division Bench in paragraphs 10 and 11, but refer to the reasoning given in
paragraph 12. Paragraph 12 of the order dated 13th April, 2017 refers to the
fact that the rectification application filed by the Revenue was allowed ex
parte vide order dated 26th June, 2015. The Division Bench felt that question
would arise whether the above change or rectification would impact the
main conclusion drawn by the ITSC in its order dated 4 th June, 2015 that
there was failure to make true and full disclosure of all facts. It was
observed that ITSC on two grounds had held that there was failure to make
full and true disclosure, namely, the bank accounts in Singapore and the
property at London. With regard to the property at London, paragraph 12
observes that the petitioner had made written submissions dated 15 th May,
2015 enclosing certain documents, which were not considered. Paragraph 13
states that the order dated 4th June, 2015 had also not considered written
submissions dated 22th May, 2015.        Paragraph 14 thereupon states and
records that the ITSC ought to have, at the first instance, put the petitioner
on notice if it was going to entertain an application for correction filed by
the Respondents. It did not matter whether the corrections would have been
beneficial to the petitioner for it was observed that the petitioner could have
persuaded the ITSC with regard to other errors, which according to the
petitioner had vitiated the order dated 4th June, 2015. The Court felt that

W.P.(C) No. 4824/2017                                               Page 16 of 52
ITSC could not have corrected the order dated 4th June, 2015 without putting
both parties to notice and the procedure of passing an ex parte order
correcting an earlier order was unacceptable. Accordingly, both orders dated
4th June, 2015 and 26th June, 2015 were set aside with the direction that the
ITSC would undertake a fresh exercise in terms of the first order dated 18 th
May, 2015 passed in Writ Petition (C) No. 4900/2015. It was also directed
that parties would not file additional or further documents and the matter
would be decided on the basis of existing documents after giving hearing.
Fresh decision was to be on merits and in accordance with the law without
being influenced by the earlier orders, which had been set aside.
22.    As noticed above, we have not, till now, referred to and elucidated on
paragraphs 10 and 11 of the decision dated 13th April, 2017 in Writ Petition
(C) No. 8101/2015. The petitioner relies on the observations made in these
paragraphs. In particular, our attention was drawn to the observations in
paragraph 11 of this order, which records there was now an
acknowledgement by the ITSC that there was no failure to make a full and
true disclosure by the petitioner as far as the above bank account was
concerned.
23.    Having considered the said contention, we find that the petitioner is
misreading the aforesaid observations out of context for it was never the
case of the Revenue, i.e. the respondents, that the account opening forms
with BSI Bank Limited, Singapore were signed by the petitioner Moin
Akhtar Qureshi as the director of the said companies. The case set up and

W.P.(C) No. 4824/2017                                               Page 17 of 52
pleaded by the respondents was that bank accounts of M/s Barro Holdings
Limited and M/s Bulova Holdings Limited at Singapore were opened by
M/s Arcas Holding Limited as a director of these companies. However,
Moin Akhtar Qureshi, i.e., the petitioner, has been shown and declared as
the beneficial owner of these companies. He has signed and made
declaration on oath in this regard. Photocopy of his passport was also
enclosed with confirmation in the Know Your Customer documentation.
24.    On the said aspect, it would be appropriate to refer to the first order
dated 24th February, 2015 passed by the ITSC, which had in paragraph 4.3
referred to the contention of the Revenue that M/s Bulova Holdings Limited,
a company incorporated in British Virgin Island, had purchased the London
property. However, the petitioner was a beneficial owner of M/s Bulova
Holdings Limited and he had given instructions for furnishing of London
property in his capacity as a beneficial owner. Similarly, order dated 4th
June, 2015 records that the petitioner was beneficial owner of M/s Barro
Holdings Limited and M/s Bulova Holdings Limited as well as the owner of
the flat at London. ITSC had relied upon Know Your Customer (KYC)
details in the account opening form. The petitioner had questioned the said
details with reference to the two accounts alleging discrepancies, which
contention was rejected in view of the fact that the details recorded in the
KYC included personal details, etc. The ITSC had also recorded that M/s
Barro Holdings Limited had executed a power of attorney in favour of the



W.P.(C) No. 4824/2017                                              Page 18 of 52
petitioner, which was signed by the petitioner and his signatures on the
documents with the BSI Bank Limited, Singapore were not disputed.
25.    Therefore, it is clear that the stand of the Revenue, i.e. the
respondents, was that the petitioner was a beneficial owner of the two bank
accounts in Singapore and the London property though the bank accounts in
the name of M/s Bulova Holdings Limited and M/s Barro Holdings Limited
were opened by M/s Arcas Holding Limited. Further, the London property
registered in the name of M/s Bulova Holdings Limited, was belonging to
and was owned by the petitioner. However, there was a factual error made
by the ITSC in paragraph 15.10 of the order dated 4 th June, 2015 in
recording that the account opening forms were signed by the petitioner and
his address was mentioned as C-134, Defence Colony, New Delhi, whereas
the factual position was that the petitioner had signed and affirmed that he
was a beneficial owner of the accounts and given personal details though he
had not signed the account opening forms on behalf of M/s Bulova Holdings
Limited and M/s Barro Holdings Limited. Reference in paragraph 11,
therefore, was limited and with reference to the aforesaid correction made
vide order dated 26th June, 2015. We do not think that the aforesaid
observation can be treated as a final and conclusive finding given by the
High Court that the petitioner had made full and true disclosure in the
settlement application before the ITSC with reference to the two accounts.
There is no discussion in this order dated 13th April, 2017 on the said aspect.



W.P.(C) No. 4824/2017                                               Page 19 of 52
26.    In the State of U.P. v. Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd., 1991 (3) SCR
64, the Supreme Court has held that any declaration or conclusion arrived
without application of mind or preceded without any reason would not
tantamount to a declaration of law which binds all Courts. The relevant
paragraph of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced as under:
         "41. Does this principle extend and apply to a conclusion of law,
         which was neither raised nor preceded by any consideration. In
         other words can such conclusions be considered as declaration
         of law? Here again the English courts and jurists have carved
         out an exception to the rule of precedents. It has been explained
         as rule of sub-silentio. "A decision passes sub-silentio, in the
         technical sense that has come to be attached to that phrase, when
         the particular point of law involved in the decision is not
         perceived by the court or present to its mind." (Salmond on
         Jurisprudence 12th Edn., p. 153). In Lancester Motor Company
         (London) Ltd. v. Bremith Ltd. the Court did not feel bound by
         earlier decision as it was rendered ,,without any argument,
         without reference to the crucial words of the rule and without
         any citation of the authority. It was approved by this Court
         in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Gurnam Kaur. The bench
         held that, ,,precedents sub-silentio and without arguments are of
         no moment. The courts thus have taken recourse to this principle
         for relieving from injustice perpetrated by unjust precedents. A

W.P.(C) No. 4824/2017                                              Page 20 of 52
         decision which is not express and is not founded on reasons nor
         it proceeds on consideration of issue cannot be deemed to be a
         law declared to have a binding effect as is contemplated by
         Article 141. Uniformity and consistency are core of judicial
         discipline. But that which escapes in the judgment without any
         occasion is not ratio decidendi. In B. Shama Rao v. Union
         Territory of Pondicherry it was observed, ,,it is trite to say that a
         decision is binding not because of its conclusions but in regard to
         its ratio and the principles, laid down therein. Any declaration
         or conclusion arrived without application of mind or preceded
         without any reason cannot be deemed to be declaration of law or
         authority of a general nature binding as a precedent. Restraint in
         dissenting or overruling is for sake of stability and uniformity but
         rigidity beyond reasonable limits is inimical to the growth of
         law."

27.    We would also like to reproduce a portion from the judgment of the
Supreme Court in Deepak Bajaj versus State of Maharashtra and Another,
(2008) 16 SCC 14, wherein it was held that decisions of the Court cannot be
read as Euclid`s theorem and the wording and the language used in the
judgment has to be read with care and caution with reference to
controversy/issue settled and decided. Relevant paragraphs in Deepak Bajaj
(Supra) read as under:-


W.P.(C) No. 4824/2017                                                 Page 21 of 52
               "7. It is well settled that the judgment of a court is
               not to be read mechanically as a Euclid's theorem
               nor as if it were a statute.
                       14. On the subject of precedents Lord
                       Halsbury,               L.C.,               said
                       in Quinn v. Leathem [1901 AC 495 : (1900-
                       03) All ER Rep 1 (HL)] : (All ER p. 7 G-I)
                       [Now                                     before]
                       discussing Allen v. Flood [1898 AC 1 : (1895-
                       99) All ER Rep 52 (HL)] and what was
                       decided therein, there are two observations of
                       a general character which I wish to make; and
                       one is to repeat what I have very often said
                       before--that every judgment must be read as
                       applicable to the particular facts proved or
                       assumed to be proved, since the generality of
                       the expressions which may be found there are
                       not intended to be expositions of the whole
                       law, but are governed and qualified by the
                       particular facts of the case in which such
                       expressions are to be found. The other is that
                       a case is only an authority for what it actually
                       decides. I entirely deny that it can be quoted
                       for a proposition that may seem to follow
                       logically from it. Such a mode of reasoning
                       assumes that the law is necessarily a logical
                       code,     whereas     every     lawyer     must
                       acknowledge that the law is not always
                       logical at all.`
                                                (emphasis in original)
                        We entirely     agree    with    the    above
                        observations.



W.P.(C) No. 4824/2017                                                     Page 22 of 52
                        15. In Ambica Quarry Works v. State of
                        Gujarat [(1987) 1 SCC 213] (vide SCC p.
                        221, para 18) this Court observed:
                        18. ... The ratio of any decision must be
                        understood in the background of the facts of
                        that case. It has been said long time ago that a
                        case is only an authority for what it actually
                        decides, and not what logically follows from
                        it.`
                        16. In Bhavnagar University v. Palitana
                        Sugar Mill (P) Ltd. [(2003) 2 SCC 111] (vide
                        SCC p. 130, para 59) this Court observed:
                        59. ... It is also well settled that a little
                        difference in facts or additional facts may
                        make a lot of difference in the precedential
                        value of a decision.`
                                                  (emphasis in original)
                        17. As held in Bharat Petroleum Corpn.
                        Ltd. v. N.R. Vairamani [(2004) 8 SCC 579 :
                        AIR 2004 SC 4778] a decision cannot be
                        relied on without disclosing the factual
                        situation. In the same judgment this Court
                        also observed: (SCC pp. 584-85, paras 9-12)
                        9. Courts should not place reliance on
                        decisions without discussing as to how the
                        factual situation fits in with the fact situation
                        of the decision on which reliance is
                        placed. Observations of courts are neither to
                        be read as Euclid's theorems nor as
                        provisions of a statute and that too taken out
                        of their context. (emphasis in original) These
                        observations must be read in the context in
                        which they appear to have been stated.
                        Judgments of courts are not to be construed as
W.P.(C) No. 4824/2017                                                       Page 23 of 52
                        statutes. To interpret words, phrases and
                        provisions of a statute, it may become
                        necessary for Judges to embark into lengthy
                        discussions but the discussion is meant to
                        explain and not to define. Judges interpret
                        statutes, they do not interpret judgments.
                        They interpret words of statutes; their words
                        are not to be interpreted as statutes.
                        (emphasis supplied) In London Graving Dock
                        Co. Ltd. v. Horton [1951 AC 737 : (1951) 2
                        All ER 1 (HL)] (AC at p. 761), Lord
                        MacDermott observed: (All ER p. 14 C-D)
                        ... The matter cannot, of course, be settled
                        merely by treating the ipsissima verba of
                        Willes, J. as though they were part of an Act
                        of Parliament and applying the rules of
                        interpretation appropriate thereto. This is not
                        to detract from the great weight to be given to
                        the language actually used by that most
                        distinguished Judge, ...
                        10. In Home Office v. Dorset Yacht Co.
                        Ltd. [1970 AC 1004 : (1970) 2 WLR 1140 :
                        (1970) 2 All ER 294 (HL)] Lord Reid said:
                        ... Lord Atkin's speech ... is not to be
                        treated as if it were a statutory definition. It
                        will     require    qualification    in    new
                        circumstances.
                        Megarry,        J.    in Shepherd       Homes
                        Ltd. v. Sandham (No. 2) [(1971) 1 WLR 1062
                        : (1971) 2 All ER 1267] observed: (All ER p.
                        1274 d)
                        ... One must not, of course, construe even a
                        reserved judgment of even Russell, L.J. as if it
                        were an Act of Parliament;
W.P.(C) No. 4824/2017                                                      Page 24 of 52
                        And,            in British        Railways
                        Board v. Herrington [1972 AC 877 : (1972) 2
                        WLR 537 : (1972) 1 All ER 749 (HL)] Lord
                        Morris said: (All ER p. 761 c)
                        ... There is always peril in treating the words
                        of a speech or a judgment as though they were
                        words in a legislative enactment, and it is to
                        be remembered that judicial utterances are
                        made in the setting of the facts of a particular
                        case."

28.    The controversy and issue in the Writ Petition (C) No. 8101/2015 in
view of the reasoning quoted above was predicated on two aspects. Firstly,
the correction to the order dated 4th June, 2015 was by an ex parte order
passed by the ITSC dated 26th June, 2015 without notice, which was
contrary to law for the reasons set out in paragraph 14 of the order dated 13 th
April, 2017. Secondly, the High Court felt that the ITSC had not considered
the written submissions filed by the petitioner.
29.    We would turn our attention to the second contention raised by the
petitioner that the impugned order dated 12 th May, 2017 is erroneous and
wrong for it relies upon order dated 24th February, 2015, which was set aside
vide order dated 18th May, 2015 in Writ Petition (C) No. 4900/2015. It is
submitted that the ITSC has committed a grave procedural error in relying
upon and stating that they had become functus officio after passing of the
order dated 24th February, 2015, though this order had been set aside by the
Court in Writ Petition (C) No. 4900/2015 vide order dated 18th May, 2015.
It is also submitted that the ITSC had tried to justify its order dated 26 th
W.P.(C) No. 4824/2017                                                      Page 25 of 52
June, 2015 in spite of the observations of the order dated 13th April, 2017
passed by the High Court in Writ Petition (C) No. 8101/2015.
30.    In order to decide this controversy and contention, we would like to
reproduce relevant portion of the impugned order dated 12th May, 2017
passed by the ITSC, which reads:-
            8. The Hon`ble High Court has now disposed of the
            above writ petition (WP (C) 8101/2015 and CM No.
            16773/2015) by an order dated 13.4.2017 in which
            both the orders dated 4.6.2015 and 26.6.2015 passed
            by the Commission have been set aside. The Hon`ble
            High Court has observed in para 13 that submission
            dated 22.5.2015 filed by the applicant have not been
            discussed by the Commission in the order u/s
            245D(2C) dated 4.6.2015 and that the said order could
            not be corrected without putting both the sides to
            notice. The Hon`ble High Court has accordingly
            directed as under:
               15. The Court is of the considered view that the
               ITSC should again undertake the exercise that it
               was expected to undertake pursuant to the order
               passed by this Court on 18th May, 2015 in
               WP(C) No. 4900/2015. Accordingly, the
               impugned order dated 04.06.2015 read with the
               order dated 26.06.2015 are hereby set aside. The
               result would be that the exercise that was to be
               undertaken by the ITSC as a result of the order
               passed by this Court on 18.05.2015 will have to
               be undertaken by it afresh. This time round there
               will be no further documents filed either by the
               Department or by the Petitioner. On the basis of
               the existing documents, the ITSC will, after

W.P.(C) No. 4824/2017                                               Page 26 of 52
               giving opportunity of being heard to both the
               parties, pass an order uninfluenced by any of its
               earlier orders that have been set aside by this
               Court.
             9. The case of the applicant was fixed for the hearing
            on the 02.05.2017 to give effect to the above direction
            of the Hon`ble High Court. In response to the notice of
            hearing under section 245D(2C) of the Act, Sh. Niraj
            Jain CA, Sh. Hiren Mehta CA, Sh. Deepak Gupta CA,
            Sh. Ashwani Gupta CA, Sh. P.K. Mishra CA and Sh.
            Dinesh Kumar Accountants attended on behalf of the
            applicant. Sh. Vinay Kumar Karan, CIT(DR) appeared
            for the Department along with Ms. M.V. Bhanumati,
            DIT (Inv.), Sh. V.K. Jiwani JCIT, Sh. Gaurav Pundir,
            DDIT (Inv.) and Sh. Santosh Kumar ACIT, Central.
            10. At the outset of the fresh proceedings u/s
            245D(2C), Sh. Niraj Jain, A.R raised the issue whether
            the scope of proceedings before the Commission was
            limited only to the two issues viz. the foreign bank
            account and the London property of Sh. Moin Qureshi
            or all the issues involved in the original order u/s
            245D(2C) dated 24.2.2015 need to be considered
            afresh. The A.R was of the view that the scope of the
            fresh proceedings was not restricted only to the two
            issues referred to above and that all the issues need to
            be reconsidered again. To support this contention he
            referred to paras 11 ans 14 of the High Court`s order
            dated 13.4.2017. He stated that in para 11 the Hon`ble
            High Court has given a clear finding that in view of the
            correction made by the Commission in para 15.10 of
            its order dated 4.6.2015 there was no failure on the part
            of the applicant to make a full and true disclosure as
            far as the bank account was concerned. The A.R

W.P.(C) No. 4824/2017                                                   Page 27 of 52
            further relied on the observation made by the Hon`ble
            High Court in para 14 that had the petitioner been
            given an opportunity at the stage of rectification order,
            it might have been able to persuade the Commission to
            the other errors which according to the applicant
            vitiate the order dated 4.6.2015. On the basis of these
            observations, the A.R contented that the Commission
            needs to examine all the issues that formed a subject of
            its order u/s 245D(2C) dated 24.2.2015.
            10.2 Ms. Bhanumati who represented the Department
            (referred to hereafter as D.R) strongly objected to the
            above proposition made by the A.R. She stated that
            the Hon`ble had only set aside the order accepting with
            the applicant`s plea that full opportunity was not given
            to him in as much as the submissions dated 22.5.2015
            were not considered. She stated that the Hon`ble High
            Court did not go into the merits of the case as it was
            not the issue before it in the Writ Proceedings. She
            stated that the para 11 of the order cannot be taken to
            mean that the Hon`ble High Court had given a clear
            finding that in view of the rectification made in the
            order dated 4.6.2015 the discourse made by the
            applicant can be taken to be full and true. According
            to the D.R this should be read only as a reproduction of
            the contention made to that effect by the applicant
            during the Writ proceedings. She argued that if the
            Hon`ble High Court has given such a finding than t here
            would be no need to set aside the order to give another
            opportunity to the applicant and to consider the
            submissions dated 22.5.2015 made by the applicant.
            10.3      The submissions made by the A.R. and the
            D.R. were considered carefully by us. We have noted
            that in para 15 of the order the Hon`ble High Court has

W.P.(C) No. 4824/2017                                                   Page 28 of 52
            directed that the Commission should again undertake
            the exercise that it was expected to undertake pursuant
            to the order dated 18.5.2015 in W.P. (C) No.
            4900/2015. In the order dated 18.5.2015 the Hon`ble
            High Court had observed as under;
               We are of the view that the documents which
               were filed on 19.2.2015 constituted part of the
               report which the Commissioner had initially
               filed on 10.2.2015. We also note that the
               Settlement Commission had relied upon the
               documents which were filed on 19.2.2015. In
               this back drop, we are of the view that adequate
               opportunity was not given to the petitioner to
               respond to the said documents.
               For this reason, we are setting aside the
               impugned order dated 24.2.2015. We are
               remitting the matter to the Settlement
               Commission to the stage of consideration of the
               Commissioner`s report and of giving an
               opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
            Considering the fact that the primary prayer of the
            applicant in Writ Petition (C) No. 4900/2015 was that
            the Commission had not given adequate opportunity
            before taking cognisance of the documents running
            into 260 pages during the hearing on 19.2.2015 and
            before passing the order dated 4.2.2015 and the above
            directions were given by the Hon`ble High Court on
            the ground of denial of natural justice, it is abundantly
            clear that the scope of the present proceedings is to be
            limited only to the issue agitated by the applicant in the
            above Writ Petition. This concerns the 260 pages
            field(sic) on 19.2.2015, which in turn relate to the issue
            of foreign bank account and the property in London
W.P.(C) No. 4824/2017                                                    Page 29 of 52
            owned by the applicant. The other issues dealt with by
            the Commission in its order dated 24.2.2017 are not to
            be considered by us, as that would tantamount to a
            review of the findings given by our predecessor which
            is not permitted under the law because the Commission
            becomes a Functus Officio after passing an order and it
            cannot sit in judgment over an order passed earlier by
            it. As regards the issue in the rectification order dated
            26.6.2015, it is an admitted position that the relevant
            facts had been placed before the Commission by the
            Pr. CIT before the order dated 4.6.2015 and it was not
            as if in the rectification application the Pr. CIT had
            placed some fresh facts before the Commission. The
            error in the order had occurred due to inadvertence at
            the end of the Commission but that error had no
            bearing on the conclusion arrived at by the
            Commission as that decision was not solely or
            primarily dependent on it. The conclusion was based
            on a holistic appreciation of all the evidence contained
            in the documents running into 260 pages.
            10.4      When apprised of our view on the above
            proposition, the learned AR prayed for an adjournment
            on the ground that the applicant would like to seek a
            clarification on this issue from the Hon`ble High Court.
            Considering that the order giving effect to the
            directions of the Hon`ble High Court is to be passed
            within the limited time period prescribed under the law
            an adjournment up to 9.5.2017 was granted to the
            applicant. On 9.5.2017, the A.R. informed that on the
            advice of their legal counsel they have not approached
            the Hon`ble High Court for a clarification and instead
            filed an opinion from the counsel, which has been duly
            considered by us. For the reasons stated above we are
            of the view that the scope of the present proceedings is
W.P.(C) No. 4824/2017                                                   Page 30 of 52
            limited to the issues arising from the 260 pages filed on
            19.2.2017. Further, in view of the directions of the
            Hon`ble High Court in para 15 of the order dated
            13.4.2017, these issued (sic) need to be considered by
            us on the basis of the existing documents ie.
            submissions made by both the parties subsequent to the
            setting aside of the order dated 24.2.2017 on 18.5.2017
            and passing of the fresh order on 4.6.2015.
            11.      Submissions made by the applicant and the
            Department : As directed by the Hon`ble High Court
            the submissions made by the applicant on 22.5.2015
            and 28.5.2015 have been examined.

31.    Paragraph 8 reproduces the order dated 13th April, 2017 passed in
Writ Petition (C) No. 8101/2015 remanding the case to the ITSC for fresh
adjudication. Paragraph 9 refers to the attendance of counsel, who had
appeared for hearing on 2nd May, 2017 before the ITSC. Paragraphs 10 to
10.4 refer to the contentions that were raised by the parties on the scope and
ambit of the proceedings, and observations and findings of the ITSC in that
regard. In paragraph 10 of the order refers to the contention raised by the
petitioner that paragraph 11 of the order dated 13th April, 2017 passed by the
High Court had given a clear finding that there was no failure on the part of
the petitioner to make full and true disclosure as far as bank accounts was
concerned. Thereafter, reference was made to paragraph 14 of the order
dated 13th April, 2017 that the petitioner should be given an opportunity at
the stage of rectification order to enable the Commission, i.e. the ITSC, to
examine other errors. We have already dealt with and examined the order

W.P.(C) No. 4824/2017                                                   Page 31 of 52
dated 13th April, 2017 and held that the said contention of the petitioner is
wrong and fallacious. We may note that the case propounded by the
petitioner, as set out in paragraph 10, was that on remand that the ITSC
consideration and decision was not restricted the two issues, i.e., the two
bank accounts in Singapore and London property, but all issues were to be
considered afresh. Paragraph 10.2 records the submission of the Revenue,
who had stated that the High Court had passed an order of remand as full
hearing was not given inasmuch as submissions were not considered and
paragraph 11 of the order passed by the High Court had not given a clear
finding on the question of full and true disclosure with regard to the bank
accounts. The sentence in the order of remand dated 13th April, 2017 passed
by the High Court in Writ Petition(C) No. 8101/2015, relied upon by the
petitioner was merely a reproduction of the contention raised by the
petitioner, and not a conclusive opinion expressed by the High Court. If the
High Court had reached and concluded that there was full and true
disclosure, there was no reason to set aside the order with remand to the
ITSC for a fresh hearing and decision. Paragraphs 10.3 and 10.4 refer to the
order dated 18th May, 2015 passed in Writ Petition (C) No. 4900/2015 and
that the remand was restricted to cognizance and examination of the
documents running into 260 pages, which were filed by the respondents
during the course of hearing on 19th February, 2015 and for which the
petitioner was granted and given adequate opportunity to respond. The
observation in paragraph 10.3 of the order were clearly with reference to the

W.P.(C) No. 4824/2017                                             Page 32 of 52
order dated 18th May, 2015 passed in Writ Petition (C) No. 4900/2015,
which had circumscribed and confined the scope of remand to the stage of
consideration of Commissioner`s report under Section 245D(2C) of the Act
after giving hearing to the petitioner. The Revenue was entitled to refer to
and rely upon the documents filed on 19th February, 2015, which was to be
construed and deemed to be part of the original report dated 10th February,
2015 filed by the Commissioner, i.e., respondent No.1 before us.
32.    While we would agree that the order dated 4th June, 2015 could have
been better worded, but we would not hold that the failure to use better
words or language would itself vitiate the final findings recorded by the
ITSC with reference to full and true disclosure made by the petitioner with
reference to the London property and the two bank accounts. The ITSC has
complied with the directions of the High Court in the orders dated 18th
May,2015 passed in Writ Petition (C) No. 4900/2015 and the order dated
13th April,2017 in the Writ Petition(C) No. 8101/2015. On examination and
consideration afresh, the ITSC with reference the two bank accounts and the
London property has concluded that there was failure on the part of the
petitioner to make full and true disclosure and the manner in which the
undisclosed income was earned. This was the main and core issue that had
become the subject matter of the order dated 4th June, 2015 and subsequent
rectification order dated 26th June, 2015 passed by the ITSC. This was also
the subject matter of the Writ Petition (C) No. 8101/2015 decided vide order
dated 13th April, 2017. This fundamental issue was to be decided, for it is

W.P.(C) No. 4824/2017                                              Page 33 of 52
accepted and admitted that every assessee invoking and filing an application
for settlement must make full and true disclosure of undisclosed income and
on this there is no lis or argument. Interestingly, the ITSC had granted
adjournment and opportunity to the petitioner get a clarification from the
High Court, whether the issue to be determined and decided by them was
restricted and confined to whether the petitioner was the beneficial owner of
the London property and the two bank accounts. As per the ITSC, these
were the twin aspects to be considered, whereas the petitioner wanted and
had argued that the scope was wider and broader.
33.    Even otherwise, the contention raised by the petitioner would not
matter and would be inconsequential, for the ITSC has recorded a firm and
categoric finding that there was failure and lapse on the part of the petitioner
to make full and true disclosure of undisclosed income. Till we set aside this
finding, the argument raised is irrelevant and of no consequence.
34.    On the question of the two bank accounts and the London property,
the finding of the ITSC are to be found in paragraph 12, which are material
and relevant and are reproduced below:-
             12. Decision: we have once again considered the
            submissions dated 22.5.2015 and 28.5.2015 filed by
            the applicant in pursuance of the directions of the
            Hon`ble High Court, even though these were duly
            taken into account by our predecessor Bench earlier
            while passing the order dated 4.6.2015. It is seen that
            in these submissions the applicant has raised various
            objections that are of technical or peripheral nature:


W.P.(C) No. 4824/2017                                                 Page 34 of 52
               i. It is stated that on 23.6.2011 i.e. the date on which
               the Bank representative of BSI Bank is stated to
               have met Sh. Moin Queresh at his residence at New
               Delhi, Sh. Quereshi was not present there. We are
               not getting into the question whether this was on
               account of any mistake in mentioning the date by
               the bank employee or otherwise. What cannot be
               denied is that this kind of a discrepancy alone does
               not disprove the plethora of other KYC documents
               provided by the BSI Bank Ltd. Singapore which
               have been received by the Department through the
               Singapore`s Competent Authority under the DTA
               Agreement between India and Singapore.
               ii. another discrepancy pointed out by the applicant
               is that in the documents provided by the Bank, some
               fact about his business like its turnover, number of
               employees in the group and properties owned by
               him are overstated/inflated. We have considered
               this objection, but we tend to agree with the
               Department that these kinds of discrepancies do not
               have any bearing on the main issue at hand i.e.
               whether Sh. Moin Quereshi was the beneficial
               owner of the Bank account.
               iii. with regard the issue of POA given by Sh.
               Yousuf Khan the brother in law of the applicant in
               the name of Sh. Moin Kureshi on 11.4.2011 the
               A.R stated that the POA proves that Sh. Moin
               Qureshi was only acting on behalf of Sh. Yousuf
               Khan and it was Sh. Khan who was the real
               beneficiary. However, a perusal of the document in
               question shows it is a very general and wide ranging
               power of attorney executed by Sh Mehboob Khan in
               the name of Sh. Moin Akhtar Quereshi to do a very

W.P.(C) No. 4824/2017                                                     Page 35 of 52
               wide range of acts on his behalf in multifarious
               jurisdiction including various tax havens. This
               power of attorney does not refer to any specific
               transaction or to any specific bank account. It the
               context of the bank account in BSI Bank, the most
               important factor is that in the KYC documents
               provided by BSI Bank it is only Sh. Moin Akhtar
               Quereshi who figures as the beneficial owner. No
               mention whatsoever can be found of Sh. Yousuf
               Mehboob Khan in the KYC documents. The
               Bankers have categorically mentioned the name of
               Sh Moin Qureshi as the beneficial owner. Also we
               are in agreement with the contention of the DR that
               the balance sheets are nothing but private documents
               as they were never produced before any government
               authority anywhere in the world.
               iv The applicant has also cast doubt on the veracity
               of the documents provided by the BSI Bank and
               stated that merely on the basis of a statement by the
               Bank it cannot be concluded that the applicant is the
               beneficial owner of the account. However, we note
               that the documents produced by the Department
               have been procured by the Department from the
               Competent Authority of Singapore under the Tax
               Treaty between the Indian and the Singapore
               government. We are unable to agree with the
               applicant that the veracity of these documents is
               doubtful and that the entire documentation regarding
               KYC is an imaginary creation of the officers of the
               Bank without any involvement of Moin Akhtar
               Quereshi.
               v. The applicant has stated that the Department has
               not been able to provide the details of payment






W.P.(C) No. 4824/2017                                                  Page 36 of 52
               towards the purchase or furnishing of the flat at
               London. While there may be some substance that
               the Department has not produced specific details it
               cannot be denied that the information provided by
               the Competent Authorities of British Virgin Island
               and Singapore and by BSI Bank contain enough
               information to show that the applicant was the
               beneficial owner of a bank account in which there
               were substantial transactions of funds. Further the
               information received from the Competent Authority
               of British Virgin Island corroborates the assertion of
               the Department about the nexus of the property at
               London with the applicant.
            12.1 As pointed out earlier, the documents running into
            260 pages on 19.2.2015 pertained to the ownership of a
            bank account and a property at London. These
            documents have been considered by us afresh during
            these proceedings, in the light of detailed submissions
            and contentions forwarded by both the parties. Specific
            question was asked by us at the end of the hearings
            from both the parties weather any fresh issue other than
            what arose from the documents already on record were
            raised by the other party. To this the A.R. as well as the
            D.R. replied in the negative. During the hearing held
            on 9.5.2017 as a part of the present proceedings, while
            responding to the objections raised by the A.R., the
            D.R. explained that the banking procedures in Swiss
            Banks are very different from those prevailing in India.
            In India only natural persons are allowed to open a
            bank account. The Swiss Banks allow even a company,
            the directors of which are in turn not natural persons
            but corporate or other artificial juridical entities, to
            open bank accounts on behalf of a natural person. In
            such a structure the identity of a natural person remains
W.P.(C) No. 4824/2017                                                    Page 37 of 52
            hidden behind a layer of artificial juridical entities. It
            was pointed out by the D.R. that it was primarily to
            counter the abuse of these kind of bank accounts and
            check the menace of fund flows to terrorist, drug
            smugglers and money launderers that Financial Action
            Task Force (FATF) of which India is a signatory and
            Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) came
            into existence. Under these regulations the Banking
            Companies are obliged to observe strict Know Your
            Customer; (KYC) norms and identify the real or the
            beneficial owner before opening a bank account. The
            beneficial owner for the purpose of these regulations is
            defined as under:
               Beneficial owner refers to the natural person
               person(s) who ultimately* own or controls ** and
               /or the natural person on whose behalf a transaction
               is being conducted. It also includes those persons
               who exercise ultimate effective control over a legal
               person or arrangement.
               * Reference to ultimately owns or controls and
               ultimately effective control refer to situations in
               which ownership/control is exercised through a
               chain of ownership of means of control other than
               direct control.
               ** This definition should also apply to beneficial
               owner or a beneficiary under a life or other
               investment linked insurance policy.


            12.2 It is in the above context that the confirmation by
            the BSI Bank of beneficial ownership` of the account
            in BSI Bank by Sh. Moin Qureshi assumes great

W.P.(C) No. 4824/2017                                                    Page 38 of 52
            importance. During the hearing before us the D.R. took
            us through the detailed facts and evidences to establish
            the beneficial ownership of the account in question by
            Sh Moin Qureshi. After the presentation of the D.R.,
            keeping in view the directions of the Hon`ble High
            Court that no further document etc is to be filed by the
            either side, the A.R. was specifically asked to point out
            to us if the D.R. had brought any new fact on record.
            The A.R. in all due fairness admitted that it was not so
            and that these facts were already on record viz. in the
            submissions dated 25.5.2015 filed by the Department.
            As the submissions dated 25.5.2015 were filed by the
            Department in response to applicant`s submissions
            dated 19.5.2015, they need to be considered even
            otherwise keeping in view the principle of natural
            justice. The relevant portion of these submissions,
            which are of importance to decide the issue at hand is
            therefore reproduced below for the sake of
            convenience:
               "12.5. The Material evidence establishing Mr.
               Qureshis involvement with Barro Holdings Ltd are
               in the form of Power of Attorney executed in favour
               of BSI Bank Ltd which was signed by Mr. Qureshi
               himself under his signature. And Mr. Qureshi has
               not disputed his signature on this document. The
               only objection raised by Mr.Qureshi in this regard
               was that on the date of signing of the document, he
               was physically not present in Singapore. However,
               the document doesnt indicate the place in which it
               was signed. It has been observed that it is a common
               practice for foreign banks to reach the client
               wherever he is and obtain his signature on the
               necessary documents.


W.P.(C) No. 4824/2017                                                   Page 39 of 52
               12.6. Thus the two objections raised above are
               frivolous, immaterial and peripheral to the issue.
               The clinching evidence of the identity of the
               beneficial owner is the declaration by the company
               Barro through its director Arcas Holding Ltd as to
               who is its beneficial owner. In this declaration,
               name of Mr. Qureshi was mentioned along with his
               other details. It is to be understood that the bank
               account is a contract between BSI Ltd and the
               account holder Barro- the contracting partner.
               12.7 The account holder is required by law of
               Singapore to give verification of the beneficial
               owner identity. In this case, Arcas Holding Ltd -
               one of the directors and authorized signatory of
               Barro has verified that the B.O. vs Qureshi Moin
               Akhtar, 26.10.1958, India C-134, Defence Colony,
               New Delhi-110024 as the beneficial owner. Qureshi
               Moin Akhtar is none other than the applicant Mr.
               Qureshi. This declaration is in Form-A and on page
               ­ 24 of the additional documents provided by the
               Singapore tax authorizes and produced before ITSC
               on 19/02/2015. The director of Barro i.e. Aracas
               Holdings Ltd, has given an undertaking to inform
               the bank on its own accord of any changes. It has
               also been notified to the Arcas Holding Ltd. that the
               bank is required to cooperate with the law
               enforcement agencies of Singapore and other
               agencies and this may required the bank to disclose
               the information provided by the contracting partner,
               in this Barro, to the relevant authorities,whenever
               required. Identity of Mr. Qureshi is further
               established by the verified copy of his passport kept
               in the record of the bank as part of the verification
               form. (pages 25-28 of the additional documents
W.P.(C) No. 4824/2017                                                  Page 40 of 52
               provided by Singapore and presented on 19/02/2015
               before ITSC). Mr. Qureshi cannot claim that the
               documentation has been done behind his back as
               copy of passport is accompanying the Form-A.
               12.8 At various places in his averments, Mr.
               Qureshi has questioned the authenticity of the
               documents provided by the Singapore tax
               authorities. He has stated that the information has
               been provided by Orbis Advisory Pvt. Ltd,
               Singapore ­ a private company. This is a misleading
               statement by Mr. Qureshi. This confirms that Mr.
               Qureshi is not intending to come clean before ITSC.
               He is indulging in giving half-truths and misleading
               the ITSC into admitting his application. This is
               exposed by the fresh information received from
               Singapore and BVI authorities. By the above
               averment, Mr. Qureshi has implied ignorance about
               Orbis Advisory Pvt. Ltd and implied that Orbis has
               nothing to do with Bulova and Barro. A reference
               was made on 14/01/2015 to the Singapore
               authorities asking clarification about, inter-alia,
               who had engaged Orbis and under whose
               instructions payments were made to Orbis, on what
               basis payment etc.
               12.9 The Singapore authorities have categorically
               stated through their letter dated 12/03/2015
               addressed to J.S. (FT&TR), CBDT, Ministry of
               Finance, Delhi that Orbis was engaged by Mr.
               Qureshi only. The letter is enclosed as Annexure- B
               and most importantly, Singapore authority have also
               supplied a copy of the indemnity signed by Mr. Moin
               Akhtar Qureshi to the board of directors, Bulova
               Holdings Ltd. authorizing them to purchase

W.P.(C) No. 4824/2017                                                 Page 41 of 52
               property in London at Flat#4,Chesterfiled House,
               South Audly Street, London for GBP 3.85 million
               and the appoint Mischon de Raya as solicitor for
               purchase of the above property. He has indemnified
               the board of directors against losses, if any, arising
               in the transactions. This document fully and
               completely establishes that Mr. Qureshi is the owner
               of London property. The document is enclosed as
               Annexure-C. This indemnity was executed before
               date of purchase of property. This establishes
               culpability and mens rea of Mr. Qureshi becuase he
               was given opportunity many times by the revenue to
               explain the ownership of this London property.
               12.10 Now the revenue is in the possession of new
               information/evidence       regarding     beneficial
               ownership of the bank account No. 61128131. 2002
               current account USD ..... Of Bulova Holding Ltd. in
               BSI bank Singapore by Mr. Qureshi. Independent
               information received from BVI dated 04/02/2015
               received in the office DIT (Inv.2-), Delhi on
               20/02/2015 provided Memorandum of association,
               registers of members, directors and shareholders of
               the legal persons, shareholding pattern, certificate
               of incorporation etc. copies of all the material
               received from BVI authorities is enclosed as
               Annexure ­ D. It contains, inter- alia of bank
               account, copy of account opening form of Bulova
               Holdings Ltd. held with BSI bank. Ltd. Singapore.
               The information was provided by the competent
               authorities of BVI under his signature.
               12.11 Bulova was incorporated on 22/02/2012 in
               BVI. The register of members shows that
               Francantina Development Inc. holds 10,000

W.P.(C) No. 4824/2017                                                   Page 42 of 52
               ordinary shares of 1 USD each. The documents
               show very clearly that the directors of Bulova are
               Arcas Holdings Ltd. and somas Group S.S.,
               incorpared in BVI. As per the MOA of the company
               Bulova, the directors have, inter alia, all the powers
               necessary of managing and directing the business
               affairs of the company. The AOA of the company
               empowered the directors to issue and sign cheques
               and other financial instruments from time to time as
               determined by the directors. The shares of Somas
               Group S.A. and Arcas Holdings Ltd. and Francaina
               are all held by Orbis Consulting Trust Kirchstrasse
               79 PO Box 5436, 9490 vaduz, Principality if
               Liechtenstein. The director of Francatina is Arcas
               Holding Ltd. All the three entities are ultimately
               held by Orbis Consulting Trust, Vaduz,
               Liechtenstein.
               12.12 It has been established that Bulova holds bank
               account with BSI Ltd. Singapore. The documents
               obtained through BVI authorities also prove that
               Mr. Qureshi is the beneficial owner of account of
               Bulova with BSI ltd. Singapore. The account
               opening application was made by Arcas Holdings
               Ltd, BVI ­ the director of Bulova. Declaration of
               the identity of the beneficial owner in Form A has
               been provided by Arcas Holding Ltd. on 16/-7/2014
               under its signature and seal indentifying the
               beneficial owner as Mr. Quershi. This declaration
               was the same as provided by the Singapore
               authorities earlier. This corroborates the
               declaration of identity of the beneficial owner as
               provided by the Singapore authorities earlier with
               regard to the bank account opened by Bulova. with
               BSI bank Ltd, Singapore. It can be seen that the
W.P.(C) No. 4824/2017                                                   Page 43 of 52
               cancelled Form-A provided by the Singapore
               authorities as dated 08/03/2012. In this form, Mr.
               Qureshis India address C-134, Defence Colony,
               Delhi-110024 was given. A change in address was
               effected on 16/09/2014 wherein Mr. Qureshi was
               changed to 9202, Princess Dubai Marina, Dubai
               UAE-225831. It has already been brought to the
               notice of ITSC in the Commissioners report
               submitted on 10/02/2015 that Mr. Qureshi was the
               beneficial owner of the bank account of Bulova with
               BSI bank Ltd, Singapore. It was also pointed out
               that Form ­A declaration of beneficial owner
               submitted at the time of opening of account
               mentioned Qureshi Moin Akhtar C-134, Defence
               Colony, Delhi-110024 and vide revised Form-A
               dated 16/09/2014 his address was changed to 9202
               Princess Towers, Marina Dubai after the date of
               search with the intention of hoodwinking the
               revenue. When Mr. Qureshi was examined on oath
               on 09/04/2014, he had stated this address is that of
               the residence of his friend Mr. Himanshu Mehta
               who owns the property. This shows that the
               reference to Qureshi Moin Akhtar in the revised
               Form-A was again to the Mr. Qureshi only. This
               shows that he has given this address of Dubai to
               mislead and hoodwink the revenue. It is reiterated
               that the Singapore authorities have confirmed that
               orbis was engaged by Mr. Qureshi and if managed
               Bulova on fiduciary basis. Mr. Qureshi gave
               instructions for furnishing the London property in
               his capacity as beneficial owner of Bulova. This
               was based upon copy of the declaration of beneficial
               owner made by Bulova to BSI Ag.             Another
               significant fact to be noted is that the documents
               obtained from BVI where Bulova and Francatina
W.P.(C) No. 4824/2017                                                 Page 44 of 52
               are registered dont even tangentially mention about
               Mr. Yusuf Mehboob Khan."
            12.3     From the above facts it is abundantly clear
            that Mr. Moin Qureshi was the beneficial owner of the
            bank account in question. This fact has come out
            clearly during the due diligence done by the BSI Bank
            under the KYC norm requirements before opening the
            account in question. It is common knowledge that
            Swiss Banks maintain strict confidentiality and are
            extremely reluctant to part with information about their
            clients. In the instant case it was only because the
            bank branch was situated in Singapore and governed
            by Singapore laws and because India has a Tax Treaty
            with Singapore under which the Competent Authority
            of Singapore is required to exchange information, that
            the Department was able to obtain these documents. A
            documents received under a Tax Treaty from the
            Competent Authority of a Contracting State have the
            force of an official document. We are not inclined to
            agree with the applicant that such a statement by a
            bank employee does not have any force of evidence.
            12.4     From the facts discussed above it is further
            established that the applicant did not make a full and
            complete disclosure of all the material facts when it
            filed its application u/s 245C(1) before us. The
            applicant had denied owning any property or bank
            account outside India during the search and even later.
            Now that it is established that he is the beneficial
            owner of a bank account in Singapore through which
            substantial amount of funds had been transferred in and
            out of the above denial is disproved. It is thus clear
            that the applicant has not come out clean before us
            while making the application for settlement u/s

W.P.(C) No. 4824/2017                                                  Page 45 of 52
            245C(1). It may be mentioned that the provisions of
            Settlement under the Income Tax Act, 1961 were
            introduced to allow an errant taxpayer who desires to
            follow the path of rectitude to make a clean breast of
            his affairs and file an application u/s 245C(1) for the
            settlement of its tax disputes before the Settlement
            Commission. However this once in a life time
            opportunity is available to an errant taxpayer only if he
            comes out clean. It cannot be allowed to a taxpayer
            who fails to disclose such a material fact as ownership
            of a foreign bank account. As Sh. Moin Qureshi is a
            resident` u/s 6, his worldwide income is taxable in
            India as laid down in sec 5(1) of the Income Tax Act,
            1961. It is therefore necessary to examine the fund
            flow in the Singapore Bank account of the applicant to
            come to a conclusion whether income declared is full
            and true. Thus his full and true income cannot be
            determined unless he had disclosed the existence of the
            account in question and explained the source of
            amounts credited in it. Further, as the flow of funds
            from this account and the purchase of property in
            London are intricately linked on both the issues the
            disclosure is not full and true.
            12.5     It is established law that the Settlement
            Commission has to examine the full and true nature of
            the disclosure of income at every stage of the
            settlement proceedings i.e. u/s 245D(1), 245D(2C) and
            245D(4) and if at any stage it is found that the
            applicant has not made full and true disclosure, the
            Commission is required to reject the application at that
            stage and send the case back to the Assessing Officer.
            This view has been supported by a number of decisions
            including:


W.P.(C) No. 4824/2017                                                   Page 46 of 52
            (i)     Ajmera Housing Corporation vs CIT (2010) 326
                    ITR 642 (S.C)
            (ii)    CIT vs ITSC, (2014) 365 ITR 68 (Bombay)
            (iii)   CIT vs ITSC (2014) 360 ITR 407 (Delhi)
            (iv)    V.M. Shaik Mohammed Rowther vs ITSC
                    (1999) 236 ITR 581 (Madras)
            We are therefore of the view that it is not a fit case to
            be allowed to be proceeded with as the applicant has
            not made a full and true disclosure of all the material
            facts in absence of which it would not be possible for
            us to determine the income of the applicant. We
            therefore hold the settlement application filed by Sh.
            Moin Akhtar Qureshi as invalid` u/s 245D(2C).

35.     We have deliberately reproduced the entire decision and reasoning of
the ITSC, to set at rest any argument of lack of application of mind on facts
and documents. Indeed, there was a detailed and through examination of the
factual aspects, including the contentions raised by the petitioner on the
question of beneficial ownership. The petitioner had submitted that he was
not a shareholder of the two companies and, therefore, he had no interest in
the companies. The Singapore authorities had only made an observation that
the petitioner was a beneficial owner, but this confirmation, the KYC
documentations certifying that the petitioner was the beneficial owner, was
imaginary or creation of the officers of the bank. The plea and contention
that the petitioner's brother-in-law, Yusuf Mehboob Khan, citizen of
Pakistan, was the beneficial owner of the property in London and also

W.P.(C) No. 4824/2017                                                   Page 47 of 52
beneficial owner of M/s Bulova Holdings Limited and M/s Barro Holdings
Limited was resoundingly rejected for cogent and good reasons. Reliance
was placed on the power of attorney executed by Yusuf Mehboob Khan in
favour of the petitioner, Moin Akhtar Qureshi, and discrepancies relied by
the petitioner with regard to the accounts was duly considered. The
contention of the petitioner that the acts attributable to him were on behalf
of Yusuf Mehboob Khan, it was observed was unacceptable in view of the
overwhelming evidence and material available and produced before the
ITSC.
36.     The documents filed with the BSI Bank Limited, Singapore
specifically and categorically mention that the petitioner was a beneficial
owner. The veracity of these documents and the entire documentation
regarding KYC cannot be ignored and treated as imaginary creation of the
officers of the said bank and without knowledge and involvement of the
petitioner. The ITSC has made reference to the banking procedures
applicable, the strict KYC norms, the legal mandate and the requirement to
identify and record details and particulars of the real or beneficial owner. It
was noted that the petitioner had not disputed his signatures on the
documents. The objection was with reference to date of signing. The identity
of the petitioner was also established by verified copy of the passport.
37.     We have also examined the documents, copies of which have been
placed on record, including the power of attorney executed by M/s Arcas
Holding Limited, the director of M/s Barro Holdings Limited in favour of

W.P.(C) No. 4824/2017                                               Page 48 of 52
the petitioner. They had certified and identified the petitioner as the
beneficial owner. M/s Barro Holdings Limited was registered in Republic of
Seychelles. As per the documents received from the Government of
Republic of Singapore under the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement
and prevention of fiscal evasion in respect of taxes, M/s Barro Holdings
Limited had opened a bank account with BSI Bank Limited, Singapore on
22nd July, 2011, which account was closed on 19th April, 2013 and all assets
and cash balance of USD 384747.13 was transferred to the account of M/s
Barro Holdings Limited with the BSI Bank Limited, Hongkong. M/s Arcas
Holding Limited and Somas Group, SA, companies registered in British
Virginia Islands were authorized signatory of M/s Barro Holdings Limited.
Somas Group, SA was also acting as Secretary of Barro Holdings Limited.
Arcas Holdings Limited had executed a power of attorney dated 29 th June,
2011 for management of assets of M/s Barro Holdings Limited in favour of
the petitioner, Moin Akhtar Qureshi. The petitioner along with M/s Arcas
Holdings Limited was a signatory to the said power of attorney. Moin
Akhtar Qureshi had executed documents affirming and accepting that he
was a beneficial owner of M/s Barro Holdings Limited vide form signed on
29th June, 2011, before and for opening the bank account with the BSI Bank
Limited. Pertinently, this data and details regarding the beneficial owner
were required to be maintained by BSI Bank Limited, Singapore, in terms of
statute and law applicable. Noticeably, the said account does not refer to and
acknowledge Yusuf Mehboob Khan, brother-in-law of the petitioner, as the

W.P.(C) No. 4824/2017                                              Page 49 of 52
beneficial owner. BSI Bank Limited, Singapore had also conducted due
diligence vide Know Your Customer information. This information
pertained and was relating to the petitioner, Moin Akhtar Qureshi i.e.
beneficial owner. The information states that Ajit Prasad, father ­in-law of
the daughter of the petitioner, was an existing client of the said bank and
two employees of the bank had known Ajit Prasad for the last five years.
Ajit Prasad had introduced the petitioner, Moin Aktar Qureshi. Importantly,
in the Know Your Customer Report, on the question of expected volume
and type of transactions/products, it was recorded as under:-

            "The account will be used to capture money that he
            receives from off shore which will then be invested.
            The client is also keen to buy London property and
            may even invest on our third party fund structure at a
            later stage. It is an investment holding company and
            will have inwards and then smaller amounts in
            investments. 2-3 inward transactions and 2-3 inward
            payments in a month. All the transactions are for
            investments largely and not commercial."

38.    Information with regard to M/s Bulova Holdings Limited was also
received from the Government of Republic of Singapore under the Double
Taxation Avoidance Agreement and the provisions relating to fiscal evasion
in respect of taxes. M/s Bulova Holdings Limited had a bank account with
BSI, AG in Switzerland.
39.    Letters received from the Singapore Authority had stated that
payments were received by M/s Bulova Holdings Limited from M/s Barro

W.P.(C) No. 4824/2017                                                Page 50 of 52
Holdings Limited's Singapore and Hong Kong bank account with BSI Bank
Limited. Lastly, and importantly, the petitioner i.e. Moin Akhtar Qureshi
has declared himself as beneficial owner of the bank account of M/s Bulova
Holdings Limited maintained with the BSI Bank, AG.
40.    Moin Akhtar Qureshi, had executed and signed indemnity bond,
indemnifying the board of directors of M/s Bulova Holdings Limited. He
had authorized the board of directors of M/s Bulova Holdings Limited to
purchase the London property, i.e. 4, Chesterfield House, South Audley,
Mayfair, London, and appoint a solicitor. M/s Bulova Holdings Limited was
/ is the registered owner of the London property which was acquired in May,
2012. Details of the income, payments from M/s Barro Holdings Limited to
M/s Bulova Holdings Limited were available.
41.    The aforesaid evidence is compelling and conclusive. It cannot be
ignored. It is in this context and in view of these documents specific factual
findings have been recorded by the ITSC. It was also recorded that the
petitioner had failed to adduce specific and clear evidence to show that he
was not the beneficial owner of M/s Barro Holdings Limited etc. and the
accounts and the London property were owned by his brother-in-law.
42.    On the question of full and true disclosure and the statutory mandate,
reference can be made to decision of this Court in Ajmera Housing
Corporation and Another versus CIT, Commission of Income Tax versus
Income Tax Settlement Commission and Others, (2014) 360 ITR 407 (Del)
and Commissioner of Income Tax versus Income Tax Settlement

W.P.(C) No. 4824/2017                                              Page 51 of 52
Commission and Others, (2010) 326 ITR 226 (Bom) and Vishwa Nath
Gupta versus Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Central and Others,
(2017) 395 ITR 165 (Del).
43.     The last contention raised by the petitioner was in respect of violation
of principles of natural justice and reference to the decision of the Supreme
Court in Union Carbide Corporation versus Union of India, (1991) 4 SCC
584 was made. We fail to fathom relevance of the said contention in the
context in question. There is no violation of the principle of audi alteram
partem in the said case as hearing was given as the impugned order refers to
the various contentions and issues raised by the petitioner and answers the
same.
44.     In view of the aforesaid discussions and the reasons, we do not find
any merit in the present writ petition. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed.
However, parties are left to bear their own costs.




                                                 (CHANDER SHEKHAR)
                                                      JUDGE




                                                     (SANJIV KHANNA)
                                                          JUDGE
        AUGUST 28, 2018
        VKR

W.P.(C) No. 4824/2017                                                Page 52 of 52

Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2023 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Ritz Consulting