London property case: Allahabad HC rejects Raghav Bahl’s writ petition against I-T dept

However, the revenue counsel defended the actions of the I-T department by arguing that there were contradictions in Bahl’s submissions especially in relation to the ‘assignment’ of the said London property in 2017 to an entity RBRK Investment Ltd. The counsel further argued that Bhal showed the London property as directly held asset in his ITR for AY 18-19, i.e. after the purported assignment and that the prosecution has been launched under Black Money Act for under-reporting of investment in foreign assets by 2,73,000 British Pounds as also for non-disclosure of foreign bank accounts in the name of petitioner’s minor son.

After careful consideration of the facts, especially with regard to the “alleged assignment” of property not being backed by ‘terms, conditions and consideration’, the High Court ruled that there exists a prima-facie case to initiate prosecution against Bahl under Sec. 50 & 51 of Black Money Act, 2015. Rejecting Bahl’s contention that the respondents were trying to put the ‘cart before the horse’, the court observed, “The appreciation of evidence or the reliability of the allegations can not be examined at this stage.”