Allowed

Anuradha Bakshi v. Union of India and Ors.

Delhi HC22 Aug 2024W.P.(C)/14771/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court quashed Look Out Circulars issued against two petitioners based on search and seizure proceedings involving their family members. While noting a reduction in flight risk due to compliance history and lack of active proceedings against them, the Court permitted travel subject to conditions from prior interim orders until the family investigation concludes.

What did the court decide?

The impugned Look Out Circulars against the petitioners were quashed; travel is permitted subject to conditions imposed in earlier interim orders.

Anuradha Bakshi Vs Union of India and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~62 & 63

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

W.P.(C) 14771/2022 ANURADHA BAKSHI .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Giriraj Subramanium, Mr. Akhilesh Talluri, Ms. Veda Singh, Mr. Siddhant Juyal, Mr. Ravi Pathak and Mr. Joy Banerjee, Advocates.

¶4

versus

¶5

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Ms. Nidhi Raman, CGSC with Mr. Zubin Singh, Advocate for UOI. Mr. Vipul Agrawal, Sr. SC with Mr. Gibran Naushad and Ms. Sakashi Shariwal, Jr. Standing Counsel for Revenue.

¶6

W.P.(C) 14976/2022 MALIKA BAKSHI .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Giriraj Subramanium, Mr. Akhilesh Talluri, Ms. Veda Singh, Mr. Siddhant Juyal, Mr. Ravi Pathak and Mr. Joy Banerjee, Advocates. versus

¶7

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Ripudaman Bhardwaj, CGSC with Mr. Kushagra Kumar and Mr. Abhinav Bhardwaj, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Induraj Singh Rai, SSC with Mr. Sanjeev Menon, JSC, Mr. Rahul Singh, JSC and Mr. Anmol Jagga, Advocates for Revenue.

¶8

W.P.(C) 14771/2022 & W.P.(C) 14976/2022 Page 1 of 8

¶9

This is a digitally signed order.

¶10

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/08/2024 at 14:23:36

¶11

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

¶12

O R D E R % 22.08.2024

¶13

Since the above-captioned writ petitions arise out of a similar/ identical factual backdrop, the same are being disposed of through a common order. Mrs. Anuradha Bakshi, Petitioner in W.P.(C) 14771/2022, is the mother of Ms. Malika Bakshi, Petitioner in W.P.(C) 14976/2022. Both Petitioners have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, seeking quashing of the Look Out Circulars opened against them, originating from Respondent No. 2– Deputy Director of Income Tax (Investigation).

¶14

The Income Tax Department has advanced the following contentions to explain the context underpinning the issuance of the impugned LOCs: 2.1. The foundation for issuing the impugned LOCs is the search and seizure proceedings initiated under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961¹ , which was carried out from 2^nd to 5^th March, 2021 in the case of Triberg Group of companies and other related concerns.

¶15

2.2. Pursuant to various incriminating documents being unearthed from the premises of the Petitioners, Mr. Tarun Bakshi, husband of Mrs. Anuradha Bakshi and father of Ms. Malika Bakshi, admitted in the statement on oath under Section 132(4) of the IT Act that he was the beneficial owner of one Thames Fund Limited (TFL), an entity incorporated in the Bahamas,

¶16

1 ‘the IT Act’

¶17

W.P.(C) 14771/2022 & W.P.(C) 14976/2022 Page 2 of 8

¶18

This is a digitally signed order.

¶19

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/08/2024 at 14:23:36

¶20

till December, 2018. Thus, it emerged that Mr. Tarun Bakshi as well as his family members, being his son, Mr. Ankit Bakshi, as well as the Petitioners herein, are also the beneficial owners of TFL.

¶21

2.3. During the course of search & seizure action, a document reflecting entity named ‘Triburg Investments Ltd.’ at Plot No. MO 0119, P.O. Box 16939, Jebel Ali Free Zone, Dubai, UAE, was found and seized. The said document is in the form of Inspection Certificate dated 25^th January, 2017 containing PO wise details of goods and its value in USD, which is certified and signed by Mrs. Anuradha Bakshi as an authorized signatory for and on behalf of Triburg Investments Ltd. Dubai, UAE. It is submitted that this fact was neither disclosed in the Schedule FA of the Income Tax Return nor admitted in the statement on oath under Section 132 of the IT Act. An FTTR reference has been sent to the UAE Tax Authorities to obtain the details of the Triburg Investment Ltd., Dubai to substantiate the findings observed during the post-search investigation, as the Petitioner has not provided any details of foreign assets in their response to the summons issued by the Directorate of Investigation, in spite of repeated reminders.

¶22

2.4. Further, the Petitioners are involved in a cognizable offence in the ongoing investigation proceedings under the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) & Imposition of Tax Act, 2015² . This is punishable with imprisonment of ten years and a fine.

¶23

2.5. In the above background, the LOCs have been issued since the Petitioners being permitted to travel abroad is likely to jeopardize the ongoing investigation as the Petitioners have been quite evasive and noncooperative thus far. In such circumstances, they are a flight risk, and ought

¶24

W.P.(C) 14771/2022 & W.P.(C) 14976/2022 Page 3 of 8

¶25

This is a digitally signed order.

¶26

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/08/2024 at 14:23:36

¶27

not to be permitted to travel abroad.

¶28

On a query of the Court, it emerges that presently no proceedings under the Black Money Act have been initiated against the Petitioners. The income tax proceedings which were initiated under Section 132 of the IT Act, stand concluded and the certain demands have been raised, which have in turn been appealed by the Petitioners. The details of such demands, as well as the present status thereof, are mentioned hereunder:

¶29

“ DEMANDS RAISED:

¶30

W.P.(C) 14771/2022

¶31

W.P.(C) 14976/2022

¶32

2 “Black Money Act”

¶33

W.P.(C) 14771/2022 & W.P.(C) 14976/2022 Page 4 of 8

¶34

This is a digitally signed order.

¶35

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/08/2024 at 14:23:36

¶36

STATUS OF PROCEEDINGS:

W.P.(C) 14771/2022

W.P.(C) 14976/2022

”

W.P.(C) 14771/2022 & W.P.(C) 14976/2022 Page 5 of 8

¶41

This is a digitally signed order.

¶42

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/08/2024 at 14:23:36

¶43

In any event, presently, the immovable assets of the Petitioners have been provisionally attached under Section 281B of the IT Act. The details of the attached properties are delineated as follows:

¶44

W.P.(C) 14771/2022

¶45

“a. Agricultural land - Khasra No. 30/12 (4-8), 18/1(3- 16), Village Paprawat, Najafgarh, New Delhi - 110043

¶46

b. Agricultural Land - Khasra No. 554, 557/2, 554, Village Sultanpur, Tehsil Mehrauli, Sultanpur, New Delhi - 110030

¶47

c. Flat (79.11% share) MG1618A, DLF Magnolias, Golf Course Road, Gurgaon, Haryana – 122009”

¶48

W.P.(C) 14976/2022

¶49

“a. MG1125, the Magnolias, DLF Phase V, Guragon, Haryana – 122009

¶50

b. No 28, Khasra 1/2 Khewat No. 13, Khataunidochi, Kasauli, Solan, Himachal Pradesh – 173204.”

¶51

The Court has considered the facts and contentions raised. There are presently no criminal proceedings under the Black Money Act which have been initiated against the Petitioners. The income tax proceedings, as noted above, have also culminated and the matters are now pending challenge in appeal. Further, it is pertinent to note that both the Petitioners have been permitted to travel abroad on several occasions by this Court, and on each occasion, the Petitioners have complied with all the conditions imposed by the Court and duly returned back to the country. In these circumstances, in the opinion of the Court, the element of flight risk is also substantially reduced.

¶52

The impugned LOCs have been active since the year 2021, ostensibly

¶53

W.P.(C) 14771/2022 & W.P.(C) 14976/2022 Page 6 of 8

¶54

This is a digitally signed order.

¶55

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/08/2024 at 14:23:36

¶56

to monitor their international travel and prevent them from fleeing the country. The idea behind issuing an LOC is to restrict a person from travelling beyond the jurisdiction of domestic Indian authorities, in case there are reasonable and cogent grounds to believe that such a person has committed a serious transgression and is a flight risk. However, there is no material placed before the Court to demonstrate that criminal proceedings have been initiated against the Petitioners that could suggest any intention to abscond. Given these circumstances, the continued enforcement of the LOCs based solely on ongoing proceedings against Mr. Tarun Bakshi and Mr. Ankit Bakshi is untenable. Such indefinite restrictions on the Petitioners’ movement infringe upon their fundamental right to travel abroad, which has been recognised and protected under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950, as observed in the landmark judgments of ‘Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India’³ and ‘Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D. Ramarathnam, Assistant Passport Officer and Ors.’⁴ This infringement is all the more amplified in cases where there have been no restrictions imposed on the freedom of persons to travel abroad by any court or other adjudicatory forum, but rather, such right is curbed unilaterally at the instance of an executive institution with the sole intention of recovering dues.

¶57

Additionally, it must be noted that the Petitioners have volunteered that they are willing to abide by the conditions imposed through the interim orders till such time that the proceedings under the Black Money Act against Mr. Tarun Bakshi and Ankit Bakshi are concluded.

¶58

In light of the above background and discussion, the impugned LOCs

¶59

3 (1978) 1 SCC 248

¶60

4 AIR 1967 SC 1836

¶61

W.P.(C) 14771/2022 & W.P.(C) 14976/2022 Page 7 of 8

¶62

This is a digitally signed order.

¶63

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/08/2024 at 14:23:36

¶64

opened at the behest of Respondent No. 2 against the Petitioners – Mrs. Anuradha Bakshi and Ms. Malika Bakshi – stand quashed.

¶65

However, as agreed by the Petitioners, their travel abroad shall continue to be subject to the conditions imposed in the interim orders. Thus, it is directed that until such date that the proceedings against Mr. Tarun Bakshi and Mr. Ankit Bakshi under the Black Money Act are ongoing, the following directions shall apply:

¶66

9.1. Mrs. Anuradha Bakshi shall be permitted to travel abroad subject to compliance with the conditions as set out in order dated 3^rd October, 2023 in W.P.(C) 14771/2022.

¶67

9.2. Ms. Malika Bakshi shall be permitted to travel abroad subject to compliance with the conditions set out in order dated 16^th July, 2024 in W.P.(C) 14976/2022.

¶68

With the above directions, the present petitions are disposed of along with pending applications, if any.

¶69

SANJEEV NARULA, J

¶70

AUGUST 22, 2024 as

¶71

W.P.(C) 14771/2022 & W.P.(C) 14976/2022 Page 8 of 8

¶72

This is a digitally signed order.

¶73

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/08/2024 at 14:23:36

Anuradha Bakshi v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anuradha Bakshi v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Mj Bizcrafts LLP (through Its Partner Sh. Rajender Kumar) Vs Central Goods and Services Tax, Delhi South Commissionerate (through Its Commissioner) & Ors.

Rajesh Adhikari and Ors. Vs Sashastra Seema Bal and Anr.

Kunal Khatumaria Vs State (Gnct of Delhi) and Ors.

Shri Nath Kushwaha & Ors. Vs Braham Swaroop Sharma & Ors.

Prayag Polytech Private Limited & Anr. Vs Canara Bank

Central Government Welfare Housing Organization Cgewho Vs Inder Jit Singh Ahuja

Mohd. Rashid Vs Union of India & Anr.

Anil Kumar Sinha and Ors. Vs North Delhi Municipal Corporation

Sunil Agarwal and Ors. Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Siemens Gamesa Renewable Power Private Limited Vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited

Tridibes Basu Vs the Disciplinary Committee, Institute of Chartered Accountants of India & Ors.

Shri Kamlesh Khantwal & Anr. Vs the Competent Authority and Administrator Safem Fop a and Ndps

Homes of the Indian Nation Vs Union of India

Pradeep Kumar Gupta Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.