Delhi High Court: Prosecution under the Black Money Act Not Contingent on Completion of Assessment

Introduction

The judgment in Sanjay Bhandari v. Income-tax Officer[i] reaffirmed a critical statutory principle: prosecution under s. 51 of the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 (‘Act’) was held not to be contingent upon completion of adjudication proceedings initiated under s. 10 of the Act. The Delhi High Court, while rejecting Sanjay Bhandari’s (‘Petitioner’) plea to quash criminal proceedings, reinforced that the legislative intent behind the Act is to tackle wilful tax evasion through undisclosed foreign assets. The prosecution initiated in such regards would thus be unaffected by whether the assessment proceedings were initiated under s. 10 of the Act have concluded.

Brief Facts

• A search under s. 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘IT Act’) was conducted at the premises of the Petitioner, on 27.04.2016, revealing undisclosed foreign assets and bank accounts.

• The Petitioner was accused of fabricating and backdating documents to portray ownership of offshore entities in a fiduciary capacity rather than as personal ownership, thus attempting to shield them from the purview of Act, which came into effect on 01.07.2015.

• The Income-tax Department initiated a complaint under s. 51(1) of the Act for wilful attempt to evade tax, and summons were issued by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM), Delhi.

• The Petitioner challenged the complaint, arguing that prosecution cannot be initiated without a completed assessment under s. 10 of the Act and in the absence of any definitive finding of tax evasion.  Further, it was also contended that ownership of the alleged foreign assets was not established.

• The Petitioner sought quashing of the complaint and summoning order, invoking s. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) read with a. 226 of the Constitution of India.

Held

• The Court held that, as per s. 48(2) of the Act, the initiation of prosecution qua an accused under ch. V of the Act is independent of any assessment proceedings which may have been initiated under ch. III of the Act. Thus, completion of the assessment under s. 10 is not a prerequisite for initiating prosecution under s. 51 of the Act.

• Rejecting the Petitioner’s argument that he was already being prosecuted under s. 50 of the Act, the Court clarified that s. 50 pertains to non-disclosure of foreign assets, while s. 51 targets wilful attempts to evade tax, thus reiterating and clarifying that both of the provisions operate in separate legal realms, i.e., the aforementioned two sections provide for the punishment for two separate offences. Thus, the sections cannot be applied in an interchangeable manner.

• At the pre-trial stage, the Court reiterated that the Magistrate’s role is limited to determining prima facie material to issue the summons. Final adjudication on ownership or evasion is a matter of trial.

• Based on recovered documents and statements from the Petitioner’s CA, it was held that creation of false documents to present a fiduciary structure constituted a ‘wilful attempt’ under s. 51(3) of the Act.

• The High Court refused to interfere in the present matter, holding that the Petitioner had failed to approach the Court with clean hands, and had alternative statutory remedies available under s. 16 of the Act to file an appeal against the assessment order.

Our Analysis

This judgment marks a pivotal reaffirmation of the independent prosecutorial framework under the Act. By holding that completion of assessment is not a sine qua non for invoking s. 51, the Court underscored the statute’s penal architecture, aimed at deterrence rather than procedural dependency.

The Petitioner’s argument that proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) or the IT Act necessitate a concluded assessment before prosecution was effectively rebutted. Reliance on P. Jayappan v. S.K. Perumal[ii] and Sasi Enterprises v. ACIT[iii] aptly illustrates that criminal prosecution and tax assessment are parallel but independent tracks in fiscal enforcement jurisprudence.

Notably, the Court’s reasoning finds resonance with the Madras High Court’s ruling in Chidambaram v. Pr. CIT[iv], wherein it was held that prosecution under the IT Act could proceed independently of a completed assessment. The Court categorically observed that passing an order prohibiting the initiation of adjudication or prosecution would undermine the very essence of the Act, particularly s. 48(2), which explicitly provides that prosecution provisions under ch. V operate independently of assessment orders under the Act.                   

Further, the judgment clarifies the evidentiary threshold at the summoning stage: the mere existence of material suggesting preparatory or overt acts of tax evasion suffices. The Petitioner’s retrospective dissociation from ownership via alleged document fabrication was rightly deemed a deliberate strategy to frustrate the law’s application.

In essence, the ruling fortifies the legislative intent of the Act to operate with deterrent severity. It prevents assessees from exploiting procedural delays or assessment pendency as a shield against prosecution for serious offences involving foreign assets.

End Notes

[i] 2024 SCC OnLine Del 7747 dated 08.11.2024.

[ii] AIR 1984 SC 1963.

[iii] (2014) 5 SCC 139.

[iv] 2018 SCC OnLine Mad 13735.

Authored by Preethi Suresh at Metalegal Advocates. The views expressed are personal and do not constitute legal opinions.