Income tax claims Ashok Mittal of Hotel Royal Plaza lied to the Delhi High Court, concealed his illegally acquired foreign assets worth Rs 450 crore, and are now under a black money investigation to get his LOC revoked.
Bharat Jeetega, Corruption Meetega!
PUBLIC INVESTIGATION
EXPOSE ON THE MAJOR HAWALA RACKET IN INDIA
Key players: Nand Kishore Chaturvedi and Ashok Mittal. One of the key document could be accessed here: https://www.scribd.com/document/694877440/DOC-20231212-WA0014
(Note: All facts and documents are public and submitted in court. (The purpose of this article is to create public awareness and not target any individual.)
Income tax claims Ashok Mittal of Hotel Royal Plaza lied to the Delhi
High Court, concealed his illegally acquired foreign assets worth Rs 450 crore,
and are now under a black money investigation to get his LOC revoked.
By Suresh Goswami
Income Tax alleges Ashok Mittal of Hotel Royal Plaza has deliberately
lied to the Delhi High Court (DHC), hiding his ill-gotten foreign assets worth
Rs 450 crore and undergoing a black money probe in a bid to get his LOC
quashed. https://www.scribd.com/document/694877440/DOC-20231212-WA0014
The IT department, in a recent affidavit filed in the Delhi High Court
where a case is going on the Ashok Mittal's petition to quash LOC opened
against him in 2012, following income tax raids, said: "Petitioner's
(Ashok Mittal) misleading submission that the department has accepted that the
Petitioner, Ashok Mittal, was a Non-Resident in AY 2015-16 to AY2018-19.
Petitioner's (Ashok Mittal) submissions before this Hon'ble Court during the
hearing dated November 16, 2023, that the Petitioner (Mittal) was a non-resident
during AY 2015-16 to AY 2018-19 and that such a position has been accepted by
the Department by accepting its income tax returns for the said period, are
false and misleading." "The petitioner (Ashok Mittal) has referred to
its income tax returns for the said assessment years, where it is the
petitioner's (Ashok Mittal) self-declaration that he was a non-resident in the
said years. The income tax returns originally were only processed under Section
143(1), and there was no assessment in the case of the assessee on the issue of
his claim as a non-resident. However, pursuant to the search proceedings in the
petitioner's (ashok mittal) case, the case of the petitioner (ashok mittal) is
in the process of being reopened under Section 148 for AYs 2015-16 to 2018-19,
wherein the respondent (income tax) will reassess his domestic income," it
added. https://web.archive.org/web/20240104095528/https://www.ptinews.com/press-detail/IT-claims-Ashok-Mittal-is-a--flight-risk--with-450-crore-undisclosed-overseas-wealth--alleging-his-involvement-with-fugitive-hawala-trader-Nand-Kishore-Chaturvedi-in-a-Rs-50-crore-illicit-investment-in-Hotel-Royal-Plaza-in-2003-/293782
As well as that, the affidavit makes it clear that the respondent
(income tax) has concurrent jurisdiction under Sections 3-6 and 10 of the Black
Money Act over the petitioner's (Ashok Mittal) hidden foreign assets and
income. The Department has also disputed the petitioner's incorrect claim that
he was a non-resident during the relevant period, and the Black Money Act
proceedings have already begun in his case pursuant to Section 10 of the said
Act. This writ petition is about the petitioner's (ashok mittal) wrong claim
that he is a non-resident. What is important is the Black Money Act proceedings
for the foreign undisclosed income and assets, not the petitioner's (ashok
mittal) domestic income. So, it doesn't matter if the Department starts a
reassessment proceeding under Section 148 or not; it has nothing to do with the
petitioner's (Ashok Mittal) claim as a non-resident and, by extension, it has
nothing to do with this writ petition. https://www.outlookindia.com/business-spotlight/delhi-high-court-upholds-loc-black-money-launderer-ashok-mittal-of-hotel-royal-plaza-by-abhinav-sharma-news-334756; https://www.asianprimenews.com/news/rp-mittals-plea-stating-hillcrests-investment-in-hotel-royal-plaza-is-a-proceeds-of-crime-tied-to-wanted-hawala-dealer-nandkishore-chaturvedi-is-accepted-by-dhc/
It is further submitted that the petitioner (Ashok Mittal) has himself
admitted in his statement recorded on October 21, 2022, u/s. 131(1A) of the
Income Tax Act that, as per Section 6(1)(c), he fulfills the criteria of being
a resident in the country as he was present in India for 60 days in each of the
concerned financial years and for 365 days cumulatively in the preceding four
AYs of each concerned year. However, he claimed that he is a non-resident based
on Explanation 1 to Section 6(1)(c), wherein in case an individual stays
outside India for the purpose of employment, instead of 60 days, the condition
of 182 days applies in Section 6(1)(c). The petitioner (Ashok Mittal) claimed
that he was employed outside India as a manager in the entities in Dubai, viz.,
Super Gold Trading DMCC, North West Trading FZC, and Danube Trading FZC. This
claim is completely incorrect in light of the following two facts: a. Firstly,
the Department has sufficient information from material seized during the
search that the petitioner (Ashok Mittal) is the owner of these entities and
not an employee. He went to Dubai as an investor and owner of his companies and
not as an employee; and b. Secondly, the petitioner (Ashok Mittal), in his
statement recorded on January 21, 2022, under Section 13(lA) of the Income Tax
Act, admitted that he went to Dubai on a long-term investor visa and not an
employment visa. The above makes it evident that the claim of the petitioner
(Ashok Mittal) that it was non-resident in the aforementioned AY is completely
incorrect and contrary to the provisions of law. https://www.aninews.in/news/national/general-news/i-t-dept-raids-hotel-royal-plazas-chairman-for-stashing-rs-40-crore-abroad20220723165115
1..https://
posted by AshokMittalPlaza @ January 05, 2024
0 Comments
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home