NEXT DATE OF HEARING: 12.12.

2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
EXTRA ORDINARY CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION
W.P.(C) NO. 10895 OF 2023

IN THE MATTER OF:

ASHOK MITTAL ... PETITIONER

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA … RESPONDENT

INDEX

S. NO. PARTICULARS PAGES

1. Additional Affidavit in Reply on behalf of 01-26

the Respondent

2. Proof of Service 27

Filed By

New Delhi PRASHANT MEHARCHANDANI &

Dated: 05/12/2023 AKSHAT SINGH
Sr. Standing Counsel & Jr. Standing Counsel,
Income Tax Department
J-50, LGF, Lajpat Nagar 3, New Delhi-24
M: +91-8968786937
E: [email protected]
 1

;.

IN THE IDGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

EXTRA ORDINARY CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION
W.P.(C) NO. 10895 OF 2023

IN THE MATTER OF:

ASHOK MITTAL PETITIONER

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA RESPONDENT

ADDITIONAL AFFIDAVIT IN REPLY ON BEHALF OF THE

RESPONDENT

Affidavit of Sunil Kumar Singh, aged about 56 years, s/o S.P. Singh,

working as Principal Director of Income Tax-1 , New Delhi, having office

at 201 , C- Block Civic Centre, New Delhi

I, the deponent above named, do hereby solemnly affirm and state as

follows:

1. I am duly authorized and competent to file the present additional affidavit

in reply to the present writ petition. I have read and understood the contents
::::==::::,,.....,,.
writ petition and the present additional affidavit in reply has been
 2

drafted under my instructions. I hereby state on oath that the contents

thereof are true and correct and nothing material has been concealed

therefrom. That, at the outset, all the avem1ents in the writ petition are

denied unless otherwise specifically admitted by the Respondent in this

additional affidavit in reply.

2. That during the hearing dated 22.11.2023, the Respondent submitted

before this Hon'ble Court that the Petitioner has argued his entire case for

quashing of the Look Out Circular ("LOC") on a completely incorrect

presumption that LOC was opened in his case due to the non-disclosure of

his Foreign Income and Assets in his Income Tax Return ("ITR") for AY

2015-16 to AY 2018-19 thereby trying to mislead this Hon'ble Court. The

Respondent submitted during the hearing that the LOC was opened vide

letter dated 13.07.2022 (Annexure -A to the WP, Page No. 27-30) after

Search and Seizure action under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961

was carried out on 07.07.2022 at the premises of the Petitioner, his family

members and his Companies. During the search, Department has found

incriminating material against the petitioner revealing that he has huge

Undisclosed Foreign Assets and Income that he holds through a web of

Shell companies incorporated in Malaysia, Dubai, British Virgin Islands

 3

proceedings amounts to more than INR 450 Crores. This incriminating

material found not only relates to the period AY 2015-16 to AY 2018-19

but also for the years 2003 onwards. Therefore, the claim of the Petitioner

that the only reason for issuance of LOC is non-disclosure of foreign

income and assets duringAYs 2015-16 to 2018-19 is misleading.

3. That while the facts relating to the Petitioner's income and assets from

DAE/Dubai and British Virgin Islands ("BVI") found mention in the

counter affidavit, there were certain facts including those relating to the

Petitioner's undisclosed foreign income and assets in Malaysia and

Mauritius which did not form part of the Respondent's counter affidavit.

Accordingly, this Hon'ble Court directed that these facts be brought on

record by way of an affidavit. It is in this light that the Respondent is filing

this additional affidavit.

4. It is reiterated that during the search, Department has found incriminating

material against the petitioner revealing that he has huge Undisclosed

Foreign Assets and Income that he holds through a web of Shell companies

incorporated in Malaysia, Dubai, British Virgin Islands and Mauritius. The

quantum of such undisclosed foreign assets and income already available

with the Department from the search and post search proceedings amounts
 4

relates to the periodAY 2015-16 to AY 2018-19 but also for the years 2003

onwards.

5. The evidence gathered during search and seizure operations reveals huge

undisclosed foreign income and assets in the hands of the Petitioner and

the same also is liable to prosecution under Section 50 and 51 of the Black

Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income & Assets) Imposition of Tax Act

2015 ("Black Money Act") for cognizable offences having punishment

upto 7 and 10 years.

6. The nature of operations uncovered during the search operations also

revealed Petitioner's constant involvement with one Nand Kishore

Chaturvedi which is a Hawala Operator and currently a fugitive. Nand

Kishore Chaturvedi and his brother Vivekanand Chaturvedi are close

associates of the Petitioner, Power of Attorney holder in Petitioner's

Mauritian and BVI based entities and also his auditors for more than 15

years as per the material seized during the search operations.

7. Respondent submits that its investigation is at a very crucial stage and the

Department is trying to obtain further information from the foreign tax

authorities relating to the foreign undisclosed assets and income of the

Petitioner. Respondent has already made FT&TR references to the

concerned authorities of all the four countries - Dubai, Malaysia, BVI and

auritius and is awaiting their responses.

 5

8. Therefore, the LOC was opened in the Petitioner's case because in light of

the above facts and circumstances and based on the revelations from the

search and seizure operations, there are very high chances that the

Petitioner, if allowed to travel abroad, will try and also has the means to

tamper the evidence that the Respondent is trying to obtain from the foreign

tax authorities which will clearly be against the economic interests oflndia

as his entire undisclosed foreign income and assets, which as per the

existing information with the Department already exceeds INR 450 Cr.

approximately, will go unassessed.

9. Therefore, it is completely incorrect and misleading on part of the

Petitioner to state that the LOC has been opened only on the basis of certain

non-disclosures of foreign income and assets during the period AY 2015-

16 to 2018-19.

SUMMARY OF INFORMATION REVEALED DURING THE

SEARCH OPERATIONS MAKING IT A NECESSARY CASE FOR

ISSUANCE OF LOC FOR THE ECONOMIC INTERESTS OF

INDIA

IO.As per the infom1ation available with the Respondent, the Petitioner has

undisclosed foreign assets and income through the following entities:

 6

S.No. Name of the company Place of Incorporation

1 Bamberg Management Inc British Virgin Island

2 Hillcrest Reality SDN BHD Malaysia

3 Snowdonia Overseas Ltd. British Virgin Island

4 Super Gold Trading DMCC Dubai

5 Danube Trading F.Z. C Dubai

6 North West Trading FZE Dubai

7 Goldmark Enterprises Limited Mauritius

Round Tripping of Funds and Masking of Identity of the Source of

Funds amounting to INR 50 Cr.

11.As per the seized material during the search proceedings and the statements

taken, Petitioner is involved in round tripping of funds amounting to INR

50 Cr. (USD 6 million) from Swiss Citi Bank Accounts of Petitioner's son

through multiple shell companies in Malaysia (through entities named

Cardiff Ltd. and Hillcrest Realty SDN BHD) owned by the Petitioner in

the garb of loans from another British Virgin Island (BVI) entity Bamberg

Management Inc which was incorporated 6 months after the funds were

first remitted (which were ultimately not re-paid and those shell entities

were even dissolved for this reason). Actually, the amounts were
 7

the amounts were reassigned as loans from the BVI entity Bamberg in 2009

by backdated redrawing of books for the period 2003-2008. To complicate

the structure, name of a dummy person (Mr. Harish Premjee) was used to

claim that he had beneficial interest in the BVI entity Bamberg who

became a shareholder in the entity only in June 2013 - 10 years after the

funds were transferred.

12.Thereafter, the said amount of INR 50 Cr. was routed to India to the

Petitioner's Indian Company, i.e., Hotel Queen Road Pvt. Ltd by way of

investment in Preference Shares through the Malaysian entity Hillcrest

Realty which is the largest shareholder in Petitioner's company Hotel

Queen Road Pvt. Ltd.

13. The Indian company then paid dividends to the Malaysian Entity Hillcrest

Realty which in turn instead of transferring the Dividend to its parent BVI

company Bamberg, transferred those dividend funds to the shareholders of

the Bamberg.

14.These shareholders (Mr. Pradeep Chandra and Mr. Ramesh Kumar Rajpal)

of the BVI entity Bamberg are close associates of the Petitioner who were

also involved with him in his Dubai operations.

15.Unsigned Wills were obtained of both Mr. Pradeep Chandra and Mr.
 8

Bamberg Management Inc (BVI entity) and Mis Danube Trading FZC

(Dubai entity) to the Petitioner.

16.All these activities happened simultaneously in 2017 when these two

individuals were made the shareholders of the BVI entity and around the

same time in 2017, dividends were distributed by the Indian company to

the Malaysian entity which further transferred the dividend to the personal

accounts of these individuals (shareholders of the BVI entity). Further,

around the same time, the unsigned Wills obtained were drafted by these

individuals assigning all the benefits from the BVI entity to the Petitioner.

17. Therefore, this entire arrangement has been done to mask the identity of

the source of the funds of INR 50 Cr. owned by the petitioner routed back

to India through shell entities abroad.

18.Department has documents as to Civil Suit filed by the Petitioner in

Malaysia against his brother Ram Parshottam Mittal and the entity (the

services of which were taken for incorporating shell companies) claiming

that the entire INR 50 Cr. in Malaysia was arranged by the Petitioner

himself.

19 .Department has documentary proof from Postcullis Trustnet (which

assisted Petitioner in incorporating and managing shell companies in

Malaysia) that Petitioner's Malaysian entity Hillcrest Realty has given

;f:'-,~~
. .,,,.s;,;c:.;- 0 .. -. l?. . . . .
·L~er of Attorney to Mr. Nand Kishore Chaturved1 who is a Hawala
;! J . .
I. !,
· \
I
. .
· ·
. : i
. . _. er
L . • ,,J7
,1\ J
·;
\. \·.:.:-:i, .... ,,;:;2.;::2
• \ •r

\\'--~\. ,;,
- :,.. ..___.......
....
'/......

~ .,.,.. _.. r; f \ ·,~

.,-,
./
~\
.

... ~. . '
...... .,~-:---::~
;.....-:
/
 9

operator and is currently a wanted fugitive in India by Enforcement

Directorate and the Respondent itself.

20.Investigation of the Respondent under the Black Money Act is at a very

crucial stage and FT&TR References have already been made to both

Malaysian and BVI authorities.

Channelising Unaccounted Income of approx. INR 200 Cr. earned from

Indian Companies to Mauritian Entity Goldmark Enterprises Limited

21.Respondent has infonnation that the Petitioner has earned unaccounted

income to the tune of INR 200 Cr. from the operations of his Indian entities

(Mis Mittal Ispat Ltd., Mis Sharda Casting Ltd., Mis Pondymetal and

Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd.) by selling final products out of books in cash and

has taken the same out of India through Hawala operations and has parked

in Mis Goldmark Enterprises Limited in Mauritius.

22.Department has information that the POA of the Mauritian company has

been given to Mr. Nand Kishore Chaturvedi and his brother Mr.

Vivekanand Chaturvedi (associates and CAs of the Petitioner). It is

reiterated that Mr. Nand Kishore Chaturvedi is a Hawala operator and is

currently a wanted fugitive in India by Enforcement Directorate and the

 10

23 .Mis Pondymetal has the residential address of the Petitioner as its

registered address. 90% shareholding of this company is with Goldmark

Enterprises Ltd.

24.Department has statement on oath of Mr. Vivekanand Chaturvedi (auditor

of Petitioner and his companies for 15 years and also the POA holder for

Mis Goldmark in India) who has stated that Petitioner is the owner of the

said Mauritian entity.

25 .FT&TR reference has been sent to the Mauritian authorities and it is very

crucial at this stage that the Petitioner is prevented from travelling abroad.

Petitioner is owner o(the BVI entitySnowdonia Overseas Ltd. which was

flagged in the Panama Paper Leaks and owner of 3 other entities in

Dubai during the period AY 2015-16 to AY 2018-19; Petitioner

incorrectly claims to be a Non-resident in India

26.Petitioner was the owner of the following entities in Dubai:

a. Super Gold Trading DMCC

b. North-West Trading FZE

c. Danube Trading FZC

27. Petitioner has stated in his statement before the Respondent that he

•.,
 11

funds of Snowdonia were later transferred to Super Gold Trading.

Department has documents seized during the search which reveal that all

the funds of Snowdonia were transferred to Super Gold Trading and the net

worth of Super Gold Trading thereafter was found to be USD 10 million

(approx. INR 76.4 Cr.) indicating that the Petitioner had business income

to this extent through the BVI entity Snowdonia.

28. Department has seized documents which indicate net profits of approx.

INR 128 Cr. during the said period from the Dubai entities. Assessee has

not provided the financials of these companies citing the reason that

maintaining books of accounts is not mandated as per the laws in Dubai.

29. Therefore, Department has sent FT&TR reference to the DAE and BVI

Authorities and the investigation is currently at a crucial stage to unearth

the actual quantum of undisclosed foreign income and assets of the

Petitioner from these entities in Dubai.

WHY SHOULD THE LOC CONTINUE IN PETITIONER'S CASE

30.That the investigation being carried out by the Respondent is at a very

crucial stage and it has already uncovered foreign undisclosed assets to the

tune of more than INR 450 Cr. and response to FT&TR references is
 12

assets and income. Therefore, the removal of the LOC at this stage will be

very detrimental to the economic interests of India.

31. That the Petitioner is alleged to have committed the offences under the

Black Money Act in connivance with one of the Biggest Hawala Operators

Mr. N and Kish ore Chaturvedi whom both the ED and the Respondent

Department are looking for since June 2017. Petitioner had appointed Mr.

Nand Kishore Chaturvedi as the Power of Attorney Holder of Hillcrest

Realty, Malaysia and also in Goldmark Enterprises Limited, Mauritius. It

has also come to the Respondent's knowledge that Petitioner, his son Mr.

Vikram Mittal along with Mr. Nand Kishore Chaturvedi also became

Common Directors of Companies namely Mis Frank.town Investment a?d

Trading Company Private Limited and Mis Niranjan Housing Private

Limited. This shows deep nexus between the Petitioner and Mr. N and

Kishore Chaturvedi.

32.Petitioner is not co-operating with the Respondent, and ifhe travels abroad

without providing information as desired from him vide Notice dated

29.12.2022 issued to him under Section 10 of the Black Money Act and

also without cooperating in the investigation, he will flee away from the
 13

a serious flight risk and hence, LOC issued against him ought not to be

quashed till the investigation under Section 10 of the Black Money Act is

completed against the Petitioner.

33 .It has also come to the notice of the Department that after the Search

conducted by the Respondent on 07.07.2022 and after issuance of LOC

dated 13.07.2022; Petitioner had transferred RM 2 Shareholding of

Hillcrest Realty SDN. BHD. Malaysia from Bamberg Investment Inc

British Virgin Island to Aravali Trading LLC. Dubai on 23 .11.2022 itself.

Therefore, further freedom to the Petitioner to travel abroad will

completely derail the ongoing investigation of the Department and will

completely frustrate the purpose for which the MHA guidelines have been

issued and power has been given to the Department to issue LOC in such

circumstances.

34. That this is not a case of a Petitioner who is fairly participating in the

investigation proceedings and who is then requesting for quashing ofLOC

in his case. This is a Petitioner who is actively concealing facts as to the

Black Money Act proceedings and is rampantly making false statements in

writ petitions filed before this Hon'ble Court and also in the rejoinder

affidavit.

travel abroad without restrictions. Therefore, the Petitioner can easily

 14

fly away. Petitioner also has adequate connections and means to easily

sustain life and livelihood outside India away from the civil, penal and

criminal consequences in India. This is supported by the fact that the

Petitioner has already lived in Dubai for 4-5 years.

36. Therefore, it is the most humble submission of the Respondent that it is

cases like these where the Hon'ble Courts including this Hon'ble Court

have exercised due caution and have refused to quash the LOC in cases

where like the present case, the investigation was at a crucial stage.

37.Reliance is placed on the decision of this Hon'ble Court in Atul Punj v.

IDBI Bank & Ors. [WP(Crl.) 2332/2022, judgment dt. 24.11.2022]

wherein in similar circumstances where Black Money Act proceedings and

SFIO proceedings were pending, no criminal complaint was filed and the

FT&TR references were pending, this Hon'ble Court refused to suspend

the operation of the LOC.

38.Even in the case of Vikas Chaudhary v. Union of India & Ors. 2022:

DHC:122 wherein the Ld. Single Judge had quashed the LOC, in similar

circumstances, the Hon' ble DB was convinced in the LPA No. 78/2022

(order dated 03.02.2022) to stay the order of the Ld. Single Judge whereby

the LOC was quashed. Therefore, the stay granted by the DB is still

is active against Mr. Vikas Chaudhary. The

 15

circumstances in the said case are similar to the circumstances in the

present case:

a. Incriminating documents were found during the search and seizure

proceedings;

b. Bogus purchases running into 1153 crores were identified in hands of

entities belonging to the Assessee therein;

c. Draft agreements were found during search regarding purchase of

shares in foreign entity;

d. No criminal proceeding was pending against the Assessee therein for

any cognizable office; and

e. FT&TR Reference was made to Dubai authorities and reply was

awaited.

39.In the above facts and circumstances, the Hon'ble DB of this Hon'ble Court

was convinced that the Department has made a prima facie case for grant

. of interim relief and the order quashing the LOC was stayed. It is submitted

that the case of the Petitioner is similar in the present case and hence, it is

the humble submission that this is not a case where this Hon'ble Court

ought to exercise its extraordinary civil jurisdiction to quash the LOC

issued against the Petitioner which, if done, will be severely detrimental to

_, the economic interests of India and in violation as well as frustration of the

4
;{)!-; T ff
IJ,,.t.* I/ t-::..~ ·~r; ~t· ! ~" ' ~.H
fe f urpose of the MHA Guidelines of 2021 .
,l ' ( ' \ ~ . 1..11 1~ \ ; ,

ff . 1 D~:;.Fi ~ : )) /

~ r;,~e<:";;.ii': z1 z' 1
\{~,);>;:------ ~
~:.:.OF\
......~~,..,;,~
 16

40.It is a well settled law that the scope of judicial review on administrative

actions is very limited and the Court ought not sit in appeal and substitute

its wisdom against the administrative actions like the issuance of LOC.

QUERIES RAISED BY THE BENCH AND THEIR ANSWERS

41.It is further submitted that the Hon'ble Bench had raised certain queries

during the previous hearings of the writ petition and the Respondent seeks

to answer the same in the following submissions.

Petitioner's Misleading Submission that the Department has accepted

that the Petitioner was a Non-Resident inAY 2015-16 toAY2018-19

42.Petitioner's submissions before this Hon' ble Court during the hearing

dated 16.11.2023 that the Petitioner was a non-resident during AY 2015-16

to AY 2018-19 and that such position has been accepted by the Department

by accepting its income tax returns for the said period is false and

misleading.

4 3. The Petitioner has referred to its income tax returns for the said assessment

years where it is the Petitioner's self-declaration that he was a non-resident

in the said years. The income tax returns originally were only processed
- _:::::.--.,.:,.1ff>,,,""'
d ''b'~- ~
- under Section 143(1) and there was no assessment in the case of the
II )-----~--.. . __.; '\\
(,. / ,:,~· / ::~ 7~:~,:~\-:~~sessee on the issue of his claim as a non-resident.
:. , ; ..... . . '< l l !
l I .,.
1" • l
•• • • .. • " •

'.\ ', .; . ::-~:-~ ; i ;,

\' j - =1
_I I
.'\\_
\ \ ;·- '
. ,'}
<,
\ ....... .
. '-... ; .., ·]~

___-:_,,,./.- ..
' .'. . ·.......r·. ,·\.. ~ ~-;.- "t.. ,,.
\ .{..
·"
.... -:-- .._.,;__ .. (....
~~
'
 17
.r-

44.However, pursuant to the search proceedings in the Petitioner's case, the

case of the Petitioner is in the process of being reopened under Section 148

for AYs 2015-16 to 2018-19 wherein the Respondent will reassess his

domestic income.

45.With respect to Petitioner's undisclosed Foreign Assets and Income, the

Respondent exercises a concurrent jurisdiction under the Black Money Act

as per Sections 3-6 and 10 of the said Act. The proceedings under the Black

Money Act have already been initiated in the Petitioner's case by issuance

of notice dated 29 .12.2022 u/s 10 of the said Act and his incorrect claim as

Non-resident during the said period has also been disputed by the

Department.

46.What is relevant for the present writ petition and the Petitioner's incorrect

claim as Non-resident is the Black Money Act proceedings for the foreign

undisclosed income and assets and not the Petitioner's domestic income.

Therefore, whether the Department initiates a reassessment proceeding u/s

148 or not is completely irrelevant for the Petitioner's claim as to non-

resident and accordingly, to the present writ petition.

47.It is further submitted that the Petitioner has himself admitted in his

statement recorded on 21.10.2022 u/s 131(1A) of the Income TaxAct that

\

as per Section 6(1 )(c) he fulfils the criteria of being a resident in the

ntry as he was present in India for 60 days in each of the concerned

*
 18

financial year and for 365 days cumulatively in the preceding four AYs to

each concerned year. However, he claimed that he is a non-resident based

on the Explanation 1 to Section 6(1 )(c) wherein in case an individual stays

outside India for the purpose of employment, then instead of 60 days, the

condition of 182 days applies in Section 6(1 )( c). Petitioner claimed that he

was under employment outside India as a Manager in the entities in Dubai

viz. Super Gold Trading DMCC, North West Trading FZC and Danube

Trading FZC. This claim is completely incorrect in light of the following

two facts:

a. Firstly, the Department has sufficient information from material

seized during search that the Petitioner is an owner of these entities

and not an employee. He went to Dubai as an Investor and owner in

his companies and not as an employee; and

b. Secondly, the Petitioner has itself in his statement recorded on

21 .1 0.2022 u/s 13 l(lA) of the Income Tax Act admitted that he went

to Dubai on Long Term Investor Visa and not on Employment Visa.

48.The above makes it evident that the claim of the Petitioner that it was non-

resident in the aforementioned AYs is completely incorrect and contrary to

the provisions of law.

 19

Petitioner's Misleading Submissions that Disclosure has been made in

its Income Tax Returns

49 .It is submitted that the Petitioner made an incorrect statement that

disclosures of foreign assets have been made by the Petitioner in its Income

Tax Returns. However, a perusal of the following pages of the returns in

the writ petition will make it evident that no such disclosures have been

made:

AY Reference
2015-16 Schedule FA onpg 63 of writ petition
- No Disclosure
2016-17 Schedule FA on pg 98-99 of writ petition
- No Disclosure
2017-18 Schedule FA onpg 146 of writ petition
- No Disclosure
2018-19 Schedule FA on pg 196 of writ petition
- No Disclosure
2019-20 Schedule FA onpg 260-262 of writ petition
- Disclosure only relating to Super Gold Trading
DMCC and Danube Trading DMCC. No disclosure of
the third entity in Dubai and other entities in BVI,
Malaysia and Mauritius.
2020-21 Schedule FA onpg 332-333 of writ petition
- Disclosure only relating to Super Gold Trading
DMCC and Danube Trading DMCC. No disclosure of
 20

the third entity in Dubai and other entities in BVI,

Malaysia and Mauritius.

Petitioner's Misleading Submission that the Black Monev Act

Proceedings are for AY 2023-24

50.It is submitted that as per the proviso to Section 3 of the Black Money Act,

the undisclosed foreign assets are chargeable to tax in India only in the year

in which such asset comes to the notice of the Assessing Officer. In the

present case, the undisclosed foreign assets and income came to the notice

of the Assessing Officer during search undertaken in July 2022 and hence,

the concerned financial year in which the same will be brought to tax under

the Black Money Act is FY 2022-23, i.e. AY 2023-24. It is for this reason

that the notice has been issued for AY 2023-24.

51 .Therefore the submissions made by the Petitioner that the Black Money

Act proceedings are for AY 2023-24 and that the Respondent is trying to

assess income for prior AYs is a desperate attempt on the part of the

Petitioner to mislead this Hon'ble Court.

 21
,,--..

Petitioner's False Declarations in the Writ Petition and during Oral

Arguments as to Cooperation in the Black Money Act Proceedings and

Concealmento{Facts

52.Department has issued the notice u/s 10 of the Black Money Act to the

Petitioner on 29.12.2022 (Annexure R-1, pg 25-27 of the Counter

Affidavit). To this notice, the Petitioner has only sought an adjournment

via letter dated 07.01.2023 (Annexure R-1, pg 25-27 of the Counter

Affidavit) stating that it is in the process of collating a response and will

submit shortly. However, more than 10 months has passed since the

Petitioner's letter and no reply has been filed.

53. Therefore, on one hand the Petitioner is blatantly evading the Black Money

Act proceedings, on the other hand, the Petitioner is making completely

false statements in his writ petition (para 6 at pg 14 & Grounds B & G at

pg 18 & 20 of the writ petition) as well as in oral submissions before this

Hon'ble Court.

54.In fact, the Petitioner has even actively concealed the fact that the

proceedings have been initiated against him under the Black Money Act

and that he has sought adjournment and has not responded for more than

10 months now. This concealment is there is his earlier writ petition as well

as in the present writ petition.

 22

55.Moreover, even after the Respondent filing documents in the counter

affidavit to reveal that the petitioner is evading the proceedings under

Black Money Act, the Petitioner has made false statement in para 15 of

the Rejoinder Affidavit that he is cooperating in the said proceedings.

56.The Respondent clarifies that it is not arguing that the non-cooperation of

the Petitioner in the Black Money Act proceedings was the basis for the

issuance of the LOC. However, the same is deservedly the reason for the

continuance of the LOC against the Petitioner.

Whether LOC can be issued in absence ofPending Criminal Proceeding

for Cognizable Offence

57.This is now a settled position oflaw by decisions of this Hon'ble Court that

the applicable amended Guidelines dated 22.02.2021 issued by the

Ministry of Home Affairs via O.M. No. 25016/ 10/2017-lmm(Pt.) allows

issuance of LOC even in cases where there is no criminal proceeding

pending for commission of a cognizable offence. Para 6(L) of the

guidelines are reproduced hereunder:

 23

for the purpose of issuance of Look Out Circulars (LOC) in respect of

Indian citizens andforeigners:-

(L) In exceptional cases, LOCs can be issued even in such cases, as

may not be covered by the guidelines above, whereby departure of a
person from India may be declined at the request of any of the
authorities mentioned in clause (BJ above if it appears to such
authority based on inputs received that the departure ofsuch person
is detrimental to the sovereignty or security or integrity of India or
that the same is detrimental to the bilateral relations with any country
or to the strategic and/or economic interests of India or if such
person is allowed to leave, he may potentially indulge in an act of
terrorism or offences against the State and/or that such departure
ought not be permitted in the larger public interest at any given
point in time.
58.Reliance is placed upon the decisions of this Hon'ble Court in Vikas

Chaudhary v. Union of India & Ors. 2022: DHC:122, paras 28, 30-32

wherein this Hon 'ble Court has accepted the Department's argument that

the amended MHA guidelines since 2017 also allow the Department to

issue an LOC in cases where there is no proceeding for a cognizable

offence is pending and it can also be issued basis the fact that non-issuance

of the LOC will be "Detrimental to the economic interests". The same

provision (reproduced hereinabove) also continues in the applicable

amended guidelines of 2021.

What is the period of validity of the LOC and Whether the Respondents

have reviewed the Continuance ofLOC against the Petitioner

/~\
/,\I;/f,··~ \\ --
(f
.
U'
,~P ·.1 r._, .. ,:_,
.. ..:t"'
r .. ., , :-:-,i-·~·
' _- .,v., ;; i 69
1
~~·i)
I
1,\
\\("'>,
\1/.;./._J, :. I:., l' '. 0()
.... .,., .
f
,l

·. ·,:;. )':() ~ \'~n·

):o~ 'w
~~
 24

59 .It is submitted that unlike the earlier guidelines where the LOC once issued

was valid only till one year and was required to be renewed by the

originating authority, as per the 2021 guidelines issued by the MHA, once

an LOC is issued, it shall remain in force until and unless a deletion request

is received by the BOI from the originator itself. No LOC shall be deleted

automatically. Relevant para from the MHA guidelines of 2021 is

reproduced:

(J) the LOC opened shall remain in force until and unless a deletion
request is received by Bo! from the Originator itself No LOC shall be
deleted automatically. Originating Agency must keep reviewing the
LOCs opened at its behest on quarterly and annual basis and submit the
proposals to delete the LOC, if any, immediately after such a review.
The BOI should contact the LOC Originators through normal channels
as well as through the online portal. In all cases where the person
against whom LOC has been opened is no longer wanted by the
Originating Agency or by Competent Court, the LOC deletion request
must be conveyed to Bol immediately so that liberty ofthe individual is
not jeopardized. "
60.The above has been recognised by this Hon' ble Court in Vikas Chaudhary

v. Union ofIndia & Ors. 2022: DHC:122,para 35

61.Furthermore, the Respondent did review the requirement for continuance

of the LOC in the Petitioner's case when the LOC was withdrawn against

his family members in March 2023 . Since no incriminating material was

found against the family members of the petitioner, the LOC was decided

to be withdrawn in their case. Since incriminating material was found

'"l

ainst the Petitioner, the LOC was not quashed in his case.
 25

62.In light of the above facts and circumstances, it is prayed that the LOC be

allowed to continue and the present writ petition be dismissed by this

Hon'ble Court.

ALTERNATIVE PRAYER (ONLY ON WITHOUT PREJUDICE

BASIS)

63. Without prejudice, only in case this Hon 'ble Court is not convinced with

the submissions of the Department, it is alternatively prayed that the

following restrictions be placed on the Petitioner:

c. The Petitioner shall be restricted from travelling to UAE, British Virgin

Islands, Malaysia and Mauritius;

d. Petitioner shall be restricted from travelling to Nepal or to any country

through the Nepal Route;

e. Petitioner shall inform the Income Tax Department every time he

travels to any country other than the countries mentioned above where

he is restricted to travel. The Petitioner shall inform about his date of

travel and return, the flight which he will take, the address where he

will stay in such country;

f. Petitioner shall participate in the proceedings under the Black Money

dated
 26

64.The Respondent reiterates that the alternate prayer above shall not be

considered as a concession agreed upon by the Respondent. This prayer be

considered only if this Hon'ble Court is not convinced with the

submissions of the Respondent for continuation of the LOC.

�5
DEPONENT
':!,.- .. , fmlS
unil Kumar Singh
II ��·11,1 �
� � � ,�._.<,-.· (�
)-1
. . )-1
VERIFICATION e T ax {ln v �ga tton
. p.MCI·pal Di� rector ot \noom
�/New O e\hl

I, the above-named Deponent, do hereby verify that the contents of this

Counter Affidavit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, and is

based on the material facts as present on the official records of the present

case under my charge, and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.

01 3
Verifi�d at New Delhi on __Q_. ___,�,__Q_��h:_ _ day of December 2023
12/6/23, 5:47 PM Gmail - ADVANCE SERVICE OF ADDITIONAL AFFIDAVIT IN REPLY -W.P.(C)NO. 10895/2023 ASHOK MITTAL VS UOI OF I…

Manjeet Singh - Court Clerk PM Chambers <[email protected]>

27
ADVANCE SERVICE OF ADDITIONAL AFFIDAVIT IN REPLY -W.P.(C)NO.
10895/2023 ASHOK MITTAL VS UOI OF INDIA
1 message

Manjeet Singh (Chambers PM) <[email protected]> 6 December 2023 at 17:42

To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected], [email protected]

Dear Sir

Please find attached herewith a scanned copy of Additional Affidavit in Reply on behalf of
the Respondent which we will file in the case of Ashok Mittal vs. Union of India [WP(C) No. 10895/2023]

|Regards
For Mr. Prashant Meharchandani
Senior Standing Counsel, Income Tax Department
Advocate, Supreme Court | Delhi High Court

Manjeet Singh
Court Clerk | M: +91-9354036934

M (Off):+91-8968786937 | Off: J-50, LGF, Lajpat Nagar 3, New Delhi - 110024

CONFIDENTIALITY INFORMATION AND DISCLAIMER

The contents of this e-mail are intended for the named addressee only. It contains information which may be confidential and which may also be privileged. If you are
not the intended recipient, please telephone or email the sender and delete this message and any attachment from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you
must not copy this message or attachment or disclose the contents to any other person, doing so may be unlawful. Thank you.
..................................................................................................................................................................................................
Please consider the environment before printing this email.

Additional Affidavit in Reply on behalf of the Respondent.pdf

6004K

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=335b600647&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a:r3152394614955641969&simpl=msg-a:r-3793930962… 1/1