Delhi High Court
K. Mohammed Imran vs Union Of India & Others on 17 April, 2009
Author: Sanjiv Khanna
29.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 640/2009
Date of decision: 17th April, 2009
K.MOHAMMED IMRAN ..... Petitioner
Through Mohd. Imran & Mr. Saurabh Prakash,
Advocates.
versus
UOI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Ms. Rajdipa Behura & Mr. Deepak
Anand, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported
in the Digest ?
ORDER
%
CM No. 4959/2009
With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the
application is allowed and the writ petition is taken for hearing today itself.
W.P.(C) No. 640/2009
1. Learned counsel for the respondent waives service of notice and
states that the matter may be heard today itself.
2. The present writ petition is directed against the order dated 27 th
W.P. (C) No. 640/2009 Page 1
November, 2008 whereby Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange has
disposed of an application for waiver of pre-deposit by partly allowing the
same and directing the petitioner to pre-deposit 70% of the penalty
amount within thirty days. It is stated that the Assessing Officer had
imposed penalty of Rs.50,00,000/- by order dated 25th August, 2004.
Thus, the petitioner has been asked to make a pre-deposit of
Rs.35,00,000/- as a pre-condition for hearing of his appeal before the
Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to
photocopy of the income tax returns of the petitioner for the period 2002-
03 onwards. The income tax returns reveal that the petitioner has a
declared his income varying between Rs.54,000/- per annum to
Rs.1,96,000/-. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner's wife had purchased an immovable property for Rs.64,000/- in
the year 1996. The income tax returns further reveal that the petitioner
had obtained loan from bank and interest payable on the said loan is being
claimed as a deduction from income from house property with effect from
assessment year 2003-04. The bank, therefore, has granted loan to the
petitioner after verifying his creditworthiness. Petitioner had claimed
deduction of Rs.37,428/-towards interest in the year 2003-04. The
allegations against the petitioner are that he had indulged in hawala
transactions along with his brother-in-law for more than Rs.2 crores.
W.P. (C) No. 640/2009 Page 2
Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, disputes the said submission
and states that as per the respondent's own case, the petitioner had
utilized foreign exchange worth Rs.46,000/- only.
4. I need not, at this stage, dwell deep into the relative merits of the
case as the appeal is pending before the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign
Exchange. I am also conscious of the fact that the petitioner has to be
given an opportunity of being heard. Keeping all these aspects in mind,
the petitioner is directed to deposit Rs.10,00,000/- in two installments as a
pre-condition for hearing of the appeal. The first installment of
Rs.5,00,000/- will be deposited within 20 days from today and the second
installment of Rs.5,00,000/- will be deposited on or before 30th June, 2009.
The period has been fixed at the request of the counsel for the petitioner.
The writ petition and all pending applications are accordingly
disposed of.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
APRIL 17, 2009
VKR
W.P. (C) No. 640/2009 Page 3
