IN HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision 12.02.2020 W.P.(CRL.) 343/2020 & CRL. M.A. 2540/2020 LAKSHMI SATYANARAYANA DUTT TADIKONDA Petitioner Through: Mr. N. Hiharan, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Aman Panwar, Mr. Mudit Gupta, Mr. Harsh Gattani, Mr. Siddharth Yadav, Mr. Sharang Dhulia, Advocates. Petitioner in person. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR Respondents Through: Mr. Anil Soni, (CGSC) with Mr. Devesh Dubey, Adv. for R-1 Mr. Abhishek Maratha, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Pratyaksh Gupta, Sr. Standing Counsel and Ms. Nupur Sharma, Advocate for (R-2). CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNISH BHATNAGAR RAJNISH BHATNAGAR J.(ORAL) 1. By way of this petition, petitioner is seeking withdrawal of Look Out Circular (LOC) issued against him and no other prayer has been pressed during course of arguments by Ld. Sr. counsel for W.P.(CRL) 343/2020 Page 1 of 7 petitioner. 2. Briefly stated, petitioner according to him is qualified chartered accountant and in 2008 migrated to Dubai to work as Financial Controller for Jaleel Group of companies and has been living in Dubai ever since. On 28.02.2018, petitioner was granted his latest residency visa by UAE. It is contended that petitioner keeps on visiting India frequently to visit his family and for other purposes. On 03.12.2019, petitioner arrived in India from Dubai and on 27.12.2019, he departed for Dubai without any impediments. However, on 06.01.2020, when petitioner again arrived from Dubai to India at Hyderabad International Airport for some business meeting then at time of immigration, petitioner was informed by concerned officers to meet with Income Tax Authorities regarding some pending issues and no other details were given. 3. When on 08.01.2020, after completing his business meetings, petitioner was leaving for Dubai from Hyderabad International Airport, then at time of immigration, petitioner was approached by few officers of Income Tax Department who served petitioner with copy of summons dated 08.01.2020 and took him to question him in regard to their investigation pertaining to Punj Lloyd Group. petitioner after cancelling his flight ticket to Dubai accompanied them for questioning. 4. According to petitioner, from 08.01.2020 to 09.01.2020, petitioner was questioned by officers of department and he answered each and every question. officers even impounded soft copies of two mobile phones of petitioner and also his laptop. On 13.01.2020, petitioner received call from Income Tax Delhi Office asking him to appear before them on 13.01.2020. So he rushed from W.P.(CRL) 343/2020 Page 2 of 7 Hyderabad to Delhi to reach Income Tax Office. He was informed that they could not question him as officers were busy. 5. From 14.01.2020 to 17.01.2020, petitioner appeared before investigating officers on multiple occasion and fully co-operated in investigation. On 28.01.2020 petitioner sent email requesting respondent agencies to revoke LOC, so that he could travel to Dubai. 6. respondents have filed status report stating therein that survey operation U/s 133A of Income Tax Act was conducted in case of M/s Punj Lloyd Limited on 19.02.2019 and during investigation it was found that M/s Punj Lloyd Limited had made payments against bogus bills raised by entities outside India which was directly / indirectly controlled by them. It is stated that this money later flowed back to accounts of entities controlled by promoters of M/s Punj Lloyd Limited. It is stated that it is petitioner who had arranged entities that raised bogus bills for M/s Punj Lloyd Limited in middle east as stated by Sh. Rahul Maheshwari (CFO, M/s Punj Lloyd Limited). It is stated that petitioner has helped in tax evasion by facilitating payments against bogus bills and invoices raised to M/s Punj Lloyd Limited by entities based in foreign jurisdiction. 7. It is further stated that in due course proceedings for LOC were initiated against petitioner U/s 53 of Black Money And Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 for abetment in tax evasion. statement of petitioner was recorded on oath U/s 131(1A) of Act on 08.01.2020 and 14.01.2020 and in statements recorded on oath, petitioner stated that entities arranged by him had raised bogus invoices against Punj Lloyd Limited and also quantified total amount of expenses booked by M/s W.P.(CRL) 343/2020 Page 3 of 7 Punj Lloyd Limited against bogus invoices. It is further stated that petitioner stated that once entities received amount from banks on behalf of M/s Punj Lloyd Limited, such entities then deducted their own commission for raising bogus bills while petitioner deducted his commission for making arrangement, after which remaining amount went back to M/s Punj Lloyd Limited and its promoters. Therefore, it is stated that transaction performed by petitioner were not in nature of normal business/commission income. It is stated that statements of petitioner are yet to be confronted with promoters of M/s Punj Lloyd Limited. 8. It is submitted by Ld. Sr. counsel for petitioner that as per status report filed by respondents, statement of petitioner has already been recorded and it is not their case that petitioner has not joined investigation as and when directed or he is evading course of law. He further submitted that petitioner is Indian citizen having Indian Passport so there are no chances of his running away. It is further submitted by Ld. Sr. counsel for petitioner that status of petitioner is resident status which is renewed by UAE authorities and there exists extradition treaty between two countries. 9. It is further submitted by Ld. Sr. counsel for petitioner that petitioner is in India since 06.01.2020 and he was lastly called for investigation on 16.01.2020 and thereafter he has not been called for joining investigation. He further argued that investigation in respect of petitioner is over. 10. Ld. Sr. Standing Counsel for respondents has argued on lines of status report. It is argued that allegations against W.P.(CRL) 343/2020 Page 4 of 7 petitioner are grave and serious in nature and he has abetted evasion of large amount of Income Tax. He further argued that statements of petitioner are to be confronted with promoters of M/s Punj Lloyd Limited and he relied upon "Piyoosh Kumar Goyal Vs. Union of India & Ors." Crl. M.A. 36254/2019 in W.P. (Crl.) No. 1766/2019 decided by coordinate bench of this Court on 28.01.2020. 11. In case of E.V.Perumal Samy Reddy, E.V.R.Santosh Reddy and Rajeshwari vs. State represented by Deputy Commissioner of Police and State represented by Inspector of Police MANU/TN/2308/2013, Madras High Court noted various types of persons who could be included in LOC:- (i) Persons with Terrorists or Militant Links, (ii) Belligerent Foreigners, (iii) Foreigners previously noticed for violations of visa conditions. (iv) Persons required by courts in criminal/civil cases who are absconding (v) Absconding Offenders wanted by Police/CBI/Customs /Central excise/ Directorate of Rev. Intelligence/other agencies 12. Apparently, petitioner does not fall in any of above categories. There are no allegations that petitioner ever absconded and did not participate in criminal proceedings, rather according to status report petitioner has joined investigation as and when called by IO and his statements have already been recorded and as stated by Ld. Sr. Standing counsel for respondents, he has made certain admissions in his statements given to department, so this shows that petitioner has been co-operating with investigating agency. W.P.(CRL) 343/2020 Page 5 of 7 13. As far as contention of Ld Sr. Standing Counsel for respondents that statements of petitioner are to be confronted with promoters of M/s Punj Lloyd Limited, in my opinion, since statements of petitioner have already been recorded, same can be confronted with promoters of M/s Punj Lloyd Limited. In entire status report there is neither any apprehension, nor there is any hint nor any allegation that petitioner would not be available for interrogation and will not present himself at time of trial. Judgment Piyoosh Kumar Goyal (supra) relied upon by Ld. Sr. Standing counsel for respondents is not applicable to facts of present case as in that case, petitioner was not co-operating with investigating agency and has been evasive during interrogation and he was main person controlling / directing affairs of group within and outside India which is not case of petitioner herein. 14. petitioner is not employee of M/s Punj Lloyd Limited as stated by petitioner and not denied by respondents. It is also not case that petitioner is not joining investigation or that he has not co-operated during investigation, rather according to respondents he has even made some admissions during course of investigation and recording of his statements. 15. issuance of LOC is serious matter as it contains full particular of individual which are sent throughout world. Therefore, keeping in view above said facts and circumstances, there is no justification in keeping present LOC alive. same is, therefore, directed to be recalled by issuing authority. following conditions are imposed on petitioner : W.P.(CRL) 343/2020 Page 6 of 7 (a) That he shall join investigation as and when called by investigating officer. However, investigating officer shall give him atleast 7 days prior notice. (b) That he shall co-operate in investigation. (c) That in case petitioner is proposes to travel beyond Dubai, he shall furnish details of country (ies) with his complete itinerary to investigating officer. 16. In case of violation of above conditions imposed on petitioner, respondents will have liberty to approach this Court. 17. With these directions, petition stands disposed of and Crl.MA 2540/2020 is also disposed of accordingly. 18. Observations made in order shall have no impact on merits of case. RAJNISH BHATNAGAR, J FEBRUARY 12, 2020 Sumant W.P.(CRL) 343/2020 Page 7 of 7 Lakshmi Satyanarayana Dutt Tadikonda v. Union of India & Anr