Delhi High Court - Orders
Anuradha Bakshi vs Union Of India And Ors on 17 April, 2023
Author: Prathiba M. Singh
Bench: Prathiba M. Singh
$~1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 14771/2022 & CM APPLs.45589/2022, 4616/2023
ANURADHA BAKSHI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. R.K. Handoo & Mr. Garvit
Solanki Advocates (M: 8527398080).
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Nidhi Raman CGSC and Mr.
Rudra Paliwal GP for R-1,3 and 4.
Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Sr. Standing
Counsel for Revenue with Mr.
Sanjeev Menon, Jr Standing Counsel
for Revenue (M: 9999711099).
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
ORDER
% 17.04.2023
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The matter has been taken up today as 14th April, 2023 was declared as a holiday on account of birth anniversary of Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar. CM APPL. 45589/2022 and CM APPL. 4616/2023 (for permission)
3. The present petition has been filed by Ms. Anuradha Bakshi challenging the Look Out Circular (hereinafter "LOC") which has been issued against her. The case of the Petitioner is that a seizure operation was carried out by the Income Tax Department in the first week of March, 2021 at various premises involving her husband Mr. Tarun Bakshi and his family members. Pursuant thereto, an LOC was issued against Mr. Tarun Bakshi, the Petitioner herein- his wife as also their two children- Malika Bakshi and Aniket Bakshi on 5th March, 2022.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:19.04.2023 19:26:544. Subsequently, various notices have also been issued under the Income Tax Act for 2015-2016 and 2020-2021 and documents have been sought. Since 2021, the statement of the Petitioner is also stated to have been recorded by the Department and the said statement has been placed on record.
5. It is submitted by Mr. Handoo, ld. Counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner is herself a business person and is carrying on her own business of designing fabric, etc. She has more than 200 employees working under her and therefore the continuation of the LOC for the last three years without any review of the same being undertaken would not be permissible. Further, he submits that the legality and validity of the LOC as also the Circular under which the LOC has been issued i.e., dated 27th October, 2010 read with circular dated 22nd February, 2021 is questionable.
6. Submissions have been heard in part in the main writ petition. Various legal issues have been raised in respect of the Office Memorandum and the power to curtail travel when seen in the context of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 as also the Passports Act, 1967. The arguments are currently inconclusive.
7. In the meantime, the Petitioner has moved two applications i.e. CM APPL. 45589/2022 and CM APPL. 4616/2023 for travelling abroad. Presently, the itinerary which has been handed over for her travel is as under:
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:19.04.2023 19:26:54 S.No. Date of Travel Address of Stay
Travel Sector
From To
1. 01.05.2023 Delhi Dubai Address Fountain Views
Sheikh Mohammed Bin
Rashed Boulevard, 193
28, Dubai 27443
2 15.05.2023 Dubai London The Dorchester-
Dorchester Collection
53 Park Lane, London,
W1K1QA-W1A2HJ
3. 25.05.2023 Londaon Italy Borghese Palace Art
(Florence) Hotel
Via Ghibellina, 174/R,
Florence-50122
4. 15.06.2023 Italy Delhi
8. Pursuant to the previous orders of the Court, a list of the moveable and immoveable assets owned by the Petitioner has been filed before the Court.
9. The submissions of Mr. Handoo, ld. Counsel is that the Petitioner being herself an entrepreneur, needs to undertake this international travel for the purposes of her business and ought not to be stopped due to the issuance of the LOC.
10. On the other hand, Mr. Hussain, ld. Standing Counsel appearing for the Income Tax Department submits that the Department has information about several international assets of Mr. Tarun Bakshi abroad in respect of which Mrs. Anuradha Bakshi is the authorised signatory. This position is disputed by Mr. Handoo, ld. Counsel. Be that as it may, Mr. Hussain, ld. Standing Counsel also submits that considering the nature of the matter, the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:19.04.2023 19:26:54 Petitioner ought not to be permitted to travel.
11. The Court has heard ld. Counsels for the parties on the application for travelling abroad. A list of the assets would show that the Petitioner claims to be inter alia, owning the following immovable properties:-
S. No. Property
1 Agricultural Land- Khasra No. 30/12(4-8), 18/1 (3-16), Village
PaprawatKhasra No. 30/12(4-8),18/1(3-16), Najafgarh New Delhi- 110043 2 Agricultural Land- Kharsa no 554,557/2,554, Village Sultanpur Tehsil Mehrauli, Sultanpur New Delhi-110030 3 Property- 32, Vasant Vihar, Vasant Marg, New Delhi, 110057 4 Property at MG 1618A, DLF Magnolias, Golf Course Road, Gurgaon, 12 Haryana, 122009
12. As per Mr. Handoo, the Petitioner exclusively owns the properties at Sl.no. 1 and 2 above. The rights of the Petitioner in the Vasant Vihar property is limited to the extent of 50% and in the DLF Magnolias property is limited to 79.11%. The combined value of the holding of the Petitioner in the above listed properties is stated to be to the extent of Rs. 56 crores.
13. Considering the assets of the Petitioner and the fact that the Petitioner is stated to be an entrepreneur in her own right, this Court deems it appropriate to permit the Petitioner to travel on the following conditions:-
i) The copies of the original documents relating to the land at Najafgarh, Sultanpur as also the property at Vasant Vihar, and DLF Magnolias to establish the actual address and the rights of the Petitioner shall be provided to the Registrar General on the next date.Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:19.04.2023 19:26:54
ii) The said properties shall not be alienated and no third party interest shall be created in the said properties.
iii) That Petitioner shall furnish a detailed affidavit disclosing his detailed itinerary, including his stay at various stations abroad, telephone numbers and residential/hotel addresses. The Petitioner shall also file an undertaking that he shall adhere to the itinerary mentioned in the affidavit and not visit any other stations.
iv) The Petitioner's contact number mentioned above shall be kept operational at all times, subject to all exceptions such as the period she is on board the aircraft.
v) That the Petitioner shall intimate the IT Department, before leaving and within 72 hours of her return from abroad.
vi) That Petitioner shall file a self-attested copy of her passport along with a copy of her visa in the Court on her return to India.
vii) The permission to travel abroad given in this order shall be subject to other applicable conditions and will not be deemed as a direction to any other authority.
viii) In case any of the above conditions are violated, the security shall be liable to be forfeited to the State.
ix) In addition, the Petitioner is restrained from dealing with any of the assets, whether moveable or immoveable, of Mr. Tarun Bakshi or her family members while she is abroad.
x) It is also directed that the Petitioner shall not deal with any of the assets of any of the companies which are under investigation.
14. The applications are disposed of.
W.P.(C) 14771/2022 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:19.04.2023 19:26:54
15. List before the Registrar General on 20th April, 2023.
16. List this matter for hearing before Court on 31st July, 2023 along with W.P.(C) 14976/2022.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.
APRIL 17, 2023 Mr/sk Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:19.04.2023 19:26:54