Ravina Khurana vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, New ...
2011 Latest Caselaw 3341 Del

*         IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+             RP No. 358/2011 in WP(C) No. 340/2010

                                   Reserved on: 08th July, 2011
%                               Date of Decision: 14th July, 2011

Ravina Khurana                                   ....Applicant
                    Through      Mr. C.S. Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate with
                                 Mr. Prakash Kumar, Advocate.
                   VERSUS

Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi & Ors ....Respondents
                Through Mr. Sanjiv Rajpal, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
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 ?

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

Learned senior counsel for the applicant submits that inadvertent

factual errors have occurred in the decision dated 20th April, 2011 and

these have been mentioned in paragraph 4 of the review application.

The errors pointed out are :-

(a) In the original returns for the assessment years 2001-02 to 2004- 05, the applicant Ravina Khurana had not included income earned outside India and deposited in the Bank Account maintained with Natwest Bank, London, but this was because the applicant was not aware of the liability to pay tax in India on the said amount. However, the applicant subsequently voluntarily vide intimations dated 1st April,

2006 and 11th April, 2006, informed the authorities about her tax liability.

(b) The FIR was not registered against the applicant - Ravina

Khurana but is in respect of Rs.97,13,86,901/- received and deposited in

Natwest Bank, by Ravina & Associates Pvt. Limited.

(c) Ravina Khurana had no knowledge about the FIR registered on 6th

March, 2006, till she received the fax dated 2nd May, 2006 from Central

Confiscation Branch, Crown Prosecution Service, London, and

therefore, the declaration/surrender made was voluntarily.

2. The aforesaid averments are contentions made by the applicant

in support of her case. The factual matrix relating to the applicant

Ravina Khurana, has been separately noticed in paragraphs 13 to 15 of

the decision dated 20th April, 2011. The factual matrix relating to the

company Ravina & Associates Pvt. Ltd., has been separately referred to

in paragraph 3 to 12. FIR registered by the CBI on 6th March, 2006, has

been referred to in paragraphs 7 to 11 while discussing factual matrix in

the case of Ravina & Associates Pvt. Ltd. While discussing the factual

matrix in the case of Ravina Khurana in paragraph 13, it is recorded as

under:-

"13. As noticed above, the criminal complaint was registered and investigation was started by the CBI on 6th March, 2006 and thereafter the letter of rogatory was issued by the Special Judge, CBI, Delhi. Information was received that in addition to bank accounts of Ravina and Associates Private Limited in NatWest Bank, London, Ravina Khurana has a personal account in the same bank."

3. It is, therefore, clear that there was no confusion or doubt in the

mind of the Court that the FIR has not been registered in respect of the

personal account of Ravina Khurana in Natwest Bank. Ravina Khurana

is a Director in Ravina & Associates Pvt. Ltd.

4. Paragraphs 16 to 18 record findings to decide the issues raised

and answered (1) whether or not income tax demand should be stayed;

(2) In the alternative, the outstanding demand should be recovered

from the accounts of Ravina Khurana, in Natwest Bank, London.

Paragraph 4 of the application has no merit.

5. In paragraph 5 of the application, it is stated that the following

contentions of the applicant have not been considered or dealt with in

the order dated 20th April, 2011.

(i) In FIR, there is no allegation against Ravina Khurana.

(ii) The allegation of corruption under the Prevention of Corruption

Act, 1988, is based on figment of imagination.

(iii) The Income Tax Department had itself applied for release of

money from Natwest Bank account but the said request was rejected

and a Revision Petition filed by the Income Tax Department is pending

before this Court.

(iv) The money lying in the Natwest Bank which belongs to the

applicant, has been put under a restraint by the Special Judge, CBI and

this money belongs to the applicant, who is not even an accused in the

FIR.

(v) The restraint order is pursuant to the act/direction of the State

and, therefore, recovery should not be made as it causes prejudice and

harassment to the applicant. It is highly detrimental and unfair to ask

the applicant to clear the tax demand and at the same time, she is not

allowed/permitted to pay the same because of the

attachment/restraint order.

(vi) There is evidence that the applicant had provided services and

was paid for the services by the foreign/Russian parties and the money

received in the Natwest Bank was on that account.

6. This Court was conscious of the said contentions including

restraint order passed by the Special Judge, CBI, and the revision

petition filed by the Income Tax Department. It was in these

circumstances, reasons and findings were given in paragraphs 16 to 18

of the decision dated 20th April, 2011. The contentions were rejected.

7. The applicant wants to reargue and re-agitate the

issues/questions which have been considered and decided by this Court

in the decision dated 20th April, 2011. This is not permissible. The

review application has no merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No

costs.

Sd/-

(SANJIV KHANNA) JUDGE

Sd/-

( DIPAK MISRA ) CHIEF JUSTICE July 14th, 2011 kkb