Prerna Chopra v. UOI. (2023) 155 taxmann.com 430/ (2024) 296 Taxman 269 /460 ITR 664 (Cal)(HC)

Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income And Assets) And Imposition Of Tax Act, 2015

S. 50: Punishment for failure to furnish in return of income, any information about an asset (including financial interest in any entity) located outside India-Appearance of petitioner is dispensed with certain conditions. [Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S. 205]

Search and seizure revealed two bank accounts in Hong Kong of the assesee and her husband that were disclosed in the assessment years. Charge of section 50 of the black money act on the assessee was framed. Assessee filed application u/s 205 of Cr.P.C before trial court for exempting her from attending trial. Trial court rejected the application. The Calcutta High Court observed that from the impugned order it is found that the learned Magistrate has not considered whether any useful purpose could be served by requiring the personal attendance of the accused or whether the progress of the trial is likely to be hampered on account of her absence. Since the nature of complaint precisely is based on documents, I am of the opinion that personal appearance of the petitioner may be dispensed with subject to certain conditions as follows:-

(i) That the accused petitioner shall submit a written undertaking before the learned Trial Court that she will not challenge her identity and the trial will proceed in her absence but in presence of her advocate-on-record.

(ii) The accused-petitioner shall also give written undertaking before the learned Trial Court that she will appear as and when required by the learned Court.

(iii) The petitioner shall not leave the country without the prior permission of the learned trial Court. Hence, the application was allowed. (AY. 2012-13, 2014-15)