Allowed

Achal Ramesh Chauasia v. Deputy Director of Income Tax and Ors.

Bombay HC4 Apr 2024IA/7397/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court permitted an applicant facing a Look Out Circular to travel to Dubai until August 5, 2024, on terms including a 96-hour return requirement. The suspended Look Out Circular and immigration restrictions were clarified to apply only to Dubai travel.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted for travel to Dubai, UAE until 5th August, 2024, subject to conditions of prior intimation and return within 96 hours of notice.

Achal Ramesh Chauasia Vs Deputy Director of Income Tax… — Banking and Recovery | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

5.ia.7397.2024.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.7397 OF 2024

¶4

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.8903 OF 2023

¶6

Achal Ramesh Chaurasia .. Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Digitally signed by UTKARSH UTKARSH KAKASAHEB KAKASAHEB BHALERAO BHALERAO Date: 2024.04.04 14:50:59 +0530

¶9

Deputy Director of Income Tax (Investigation) and Ors.

¶10

.. Respondents

¶11

Mr.Atul Rajadhyaksha, Senior Advocate a/w Akhilesh Dubey, Vagish Mishra, Amit Dubey, Uttam Dubey, Rajuram Kuleriya, Shubham Sharma, Alex Dsouza, Emad Khan, Sahil Upadhyay, Varad Dubey i/b Law Counsellors, Advocates for the Applicant.

¶12

Ms.Swapna Gokhale, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 5.

¶13

Mr.D.P. Singh , Advocate for Respondent Nos.3 and 4.

¶14

CORAM: B. P. COLABAWALLA & SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, JJ. DATE : APRIL 04, 2024

¶15

P. C.

¶16

1. The above Interim Application is filed seeking permission to travel to Dubai, UAE from such date as this Court deems fit till 5^th August, 2024, and on such terms and conditions as this Court may impose. This Interim Application is necessitated because a Look Out

Utkarsh

Page 1 of 6

APRIL 04, 2024

5.ia.7397.2024.doc

Circular has been issued against the Applicant-Petitioner at the instance of the Income Tax Department, and which circular is also challenged in the above Writ Petition.

¶22

2. Mr.Rajadhyaksha, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant-Petitioner, submitted that in the past as well the Applicant-Petitioner has been permitted to travel to Dubai for visiting his wife and child who are currently residing there. He submitted that this apart, the Applicant-Petitioner has a business in Dubai and for which he needs to travel. He submitted that on every occasion when the Applicant-Petitioner has been granted permission to travel he has returned back to India without breaching any of the terms and conditions imposed upon him. He, therefore, prayed that the ApplicantPetitioner be granted permission to travel to Dubai from such dates as this Court may deem fit, till 5^th August, 2024.

¶23

3. Ms.Gokhale, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Income Tax Department submitted that though the assessment proceedings in relation to the Applicant-Petitioner are now completed, his presence would be required before the Income Tax Authorities.

¶24

Page 2 of 6 APRIL 04, 2024

¶25

Utkarsh

¶26

5.ia.7397.2024.doc

¶27

Therefore, the Applicant-Petitioner ought not to be allowed to leave the country, was the submission.

¶28

4. In answer to this argument, Mr.Rajadhyaksha pointed out that in the past also the same objection was taken and the ApplicantPetitioner was permitted to travel abroad subject to the ApplicantPetitioner returning to India after 96 hours notice was given to the Applicant-Petitioner to make himself available before the Income Tax Authorities. He submitted that in fact such notice was issued on one occasion and the Applicant-Petitioner did presence himself before the Income Tax Authorities. He, therefore, submitted that if the same condition is imposed, this apprehension of the Income Tax Department is fully redressed.

¶29

5. We have heard Mr.Rajadhyaksha as well as Ms.Gokhale. From the record we find that on previous occasions also the ApplicantPetitioner has been allowed to travel to Dubai, UAE. It is also not in dispute that he has returned back to India without breaching any of the terms and conditions that were imposed upon him. Considering these facts and circumstances, we permit the Applicant-Petitioner to travel to

¶30

Page 3 of 6 APRIL 04, 2024

¶31

Utkarsh

¶32

5.ia.7397.2024.doc

¶33

Dubai, UAE from 8^th April, 2024 to 5^th August, 2024 (To & Fro multiple times) on the following terms and conditions:-

¶34

(a) The Applicant-Petitioner shall file an undertaking-cumaffidavit in this Court that he shall intimate the Income Tax Department atleast 48 hours in advance before he undertakes any travel to Dubai. Copy of the said affidavit shall also be filed in the Registry of this Court.

¶35

(b) The Applicant-Petitioner shall file an undertaking that he shall return back to India finally on or before 6^th August, 2024. In the said undertaking, the Applicant-Petitioner shall also state that he shall not apply for renewal or extension or modification of this order until he returns back to India.

¶36

(c) The Applicant-Petitioner shall also file an undertaking that in the event the Income Tax Department requires his presence during this period (8^th April, 2024 to 5^th August, 2024), he shall return back to India within 96 hours of receiving notice requiring his personal presence before the Income Tax Department. It is clarified that once he attends before the Income Tax Department, he would be permitted to go back to

Page 4 of 6

APRIL 04, 2024

Utkarsh

5.ia.7397.2024.doc

Dubai under this very order and would not require a fresh permission, provided that he is traveling any time before 5^th August, 2024.

¶42

(d) Both the aforesaid undertakings shall be served on the advocates for the Income Tax Department before the date of departure.

¶43

(e) Within 1 week of returning to India, namely, within 1 week from 6^th August, 2024 the Applicant-Petitioner shall file an affidavit setting out the expenses incurred by him during the above travel and the source/s of income used for funding the said expenses. This affidavit shall also be served on the advocates for the Income Tax Department within 1 week from 6^th August, 2024.

¶44

6. Subject to the above conditions, the Look Out Circular issued at the instance of the Income Tax Department-II, Mumbai against the Applicant-Petitioner is suspended upto 6^th August, 2024. It is clarified that this order does not apply to any other Look Out Circular and/or restraint order, if any, issued by any other Authority/Agency/Court/Bank. It is further clarified that this

Utkarsh

Page 5 of 6

APRIL 04, 2024

5.ia.7397.2024.doc

suspension is only for the purpose of permitting the ApplicantPetitioner to travel to Dubai, UAE and not to any other destination.

¶50

7. The immigration authorities at all ports of departure, including all airports will permit the Applicant-Petitioner passage and permit him to take his flights out of the country irrespective of whether the Income Tax Department-II, Mumbai have notified them or not and irrespective of whether this suspension is noted in the immigration authorities' systems or otherwise.

¶51

8. The immigration authorities will not insist upon a certified copy of this order but will act on presentation of an authenticated or digitally signed copy of this order.

¶52

9. The Interim Application is accordingly disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶53

10. This order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary/ Personal Assistant of this Court. All concerned will act on production by fax or email of a digitally signed copy of this order.

¶54

[SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN,J.] [B. P. COLABAWALLA, J.]

¶55

Page 6 of 6

¶56

APRIL 04, 2024

¶57

Utkarsh

Achal Ramesh Chauasia v. Deputy Director of Income Tax and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Achal Ramesh Chauasia v. Deputy Director of Income Tax and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. Aziz Amir Ali Shairkhan Vs State of Maharashtra through Secretary Revenue and Forest Dept. and Ors.

Babu Ram Gupta vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Gupta Builders and Developers Thr Its Partner and Authorized Signatory Mr. Sandeep Goel vs the State of Maharashtra and 4 Others

Meena Raghavendra Joshi vs Idbi Bank Limited and 5 Ors.

The Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement vs the Branch Manager, the Goa State Cooperative Bank Ltd.

Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. vs Wavefield Inseis as and Anr.