The assessee’s declarations under the 2020 Act were rejected on the grounds that the assessee was charged with having conspired to commit offences under section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, conspiracy to commit offences was in respect of cheating under section 420 of the Code 1860 and offences under section 13(1)(d) and section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. On a writ dismissing the petition, the Court held that (i) that in both the cases, under sections 120B and 420 of the 1860 Code and also for offences under section 13(1)(d) and section 13(2) of the 1988 Act prosecution was instituted against the assessee and first information report had been duly lodged. In both cases the assessee was charged with having conspired to commit offences under the 1988 Act casting a shadow on the monies sought to be offered to tax. The pendency of criminal proceedings against the assessee was an admitted position. The contention of the assessee that despite the pendency of these two criminal proceedings, it would not fall within the ambit of section 9(c) of the 2020 Act and that since in the first proceeding prosecution had not yet been instituted and in the second proceeding it was not punishable for offences under the 1988 Act were misconceived and baseless. The charge against the assessee under the 1988 Act would have to be read as composite whole as framed and could not be segregated. The assessee having been charged with conspiracy to have committed acts of corruption which were punishable under the 1988 Act ex facie, there was a shadow of illegality on the money sought to be offered to tax. Therefore, the assessee was not eligible to the benefit under the 2020 Act and its declarations were rightly rejected.

(ii)  That even if it was assumed that the designated authority was required to delve into or consider the issue of applicability of the 1988 Act, it was trite law that there could be abettors or conspirators to the offence under section 13 of the 1988 Act who might be private persons.

The Court held that the benefits granted by the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, by legislative policy are not available to persons identified in section 9(c) of the Act. The purpose and intent behind this provision is clear and unambiguous that the Act would only apply to monies acquired by legal means and not to monies generated from socio-economic offences and to ensure that the Act which is a beneficial legislation, is not utilised for regularising or seeking benefits qua tainted monies or monies which fall under the shadow of a socio-economic offence. There was a clear purpose and intent to the provisions of section 9(c) which is to ensure that revenue which has been clogged and the income which is being offered to tax is not shadowed by a likelihood of the income having arisen from socio-economic crimes for which prosecution has been instituted. The 2020 Act does not and cannot be read as providing a window to “regularise” tainted money.