"Assessment can go on but no final order": Delhi High Court in Black Money Act proceeding against Robert Vadra in connection with London property

The Delhi High Court on Friday granted three weeks' time to Robert Vadra, husband of Congress leader Priyanka Gandhi Vadra, to file his reply to the notices issued to him by the authorities under the Black Money Act (Undislcosed Foriegn Income and Assets) Act, 2015, in connection with a property in London. .Considering the challenge mounted to notices by Vadra, a Division Bench of Justices Rajiv Shakdher and Talwant Singh also directed the authorities to not pass any final order after completing the assessment in the case. . "..the Petitioner will have the liberty to file reply to the notices.. and for the purpose, a further three weeks' time is granted to the Petitioner. (The authorities) can continue with the same (assessment proceedings). However, no final order may be passed.", the Court ordered. .Notice was also issued in the challenge and reply was sought from the Central government, Central Board of Direct Taxes and other tax authorities within four weeks. .In December 2018, Robert Vadra had received a communication under Section 10(1) of the Black Money Act from the Office of the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Range-VII, asking him to furnish certain information in connection with the assessment for year 2019-2020. Subsequent notices were issued earlier this month. .As per the authorities, in 2010, Vadra had acquired the beneficial ownership of a property located at 12 Ellerton House, Bryanston Square, London for 1.9 million GBP in violation of the Black Money Act. .The beneficial ownership, it is alleged, was created through the sale of the property by Sanjay Bhandari to one Skylite Investment FZE (UAE) whose shareholding had moved from CC Thampi to GV Cheru to Yayha Abraham over 2009 to 2016..Relying on 18 emails exchanged between Manoj Arora (Vadra's PA), one Sumit Chadha and Vadra, the authorities alleged that Vadra carried out extensive renovation work in the property. .Appearing for Vadra, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi today argued that the property originally belonged to a company named Vertex, which was acquired by Sanjay Bhandari and there was not a single document on record to show that Vadra was related to any of the parties. .He also asserted that there was no evidence to show that there was any payment of consideration by Vadra to any party in connection with the property. .He pointed out that out of the 18 emails in question, only one was sent by Vadra to Sumit Chada and the same was merely on "payment about repair". .Singhvi also argued that the Black Money Act could not be applied retrospectively to the represent case. .He also highlighted that after issuing the first notice in 2018, for almost 24 months, no notice or show cause was issued by the authorities to Vadra. Singhvi inter alia also submitted that on account of the ongoing pandemic, the Supreme Court had frozen all limitations. .Appearing for the Respondents, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta stated it was malafide on part of Vadra to move the High Court against the assessment three years after the notice was issued in 2018. .He thus contended that Vadra must be directed to file his response by the deadline of May 31 and a final assessment order be allowed to be passed. ."..this appears to be a case where you took your chances..when 31st is coming, they said give me more time. We said no. Since 2018 the government has been waiting..if an order is passed against him, he can challenge.".Additional Solocitor General Balbir Singh also argued that there were admittedly "emails after emails" discussing the "development of the property". .He also contended that Vadra was merely pre-empting that an adverse order would be passed against him. .Considering that the issue of retrospectivity of Black Money Act was pending consideration before court in other petitions as well, the Court decided to hear Vadra's petition along with them. ."Limitation can't run because of the Supreme Court order. Give him time. You proceed with the assessment but no final order. We have to consider your argument and his argument.".The Court recorded that the counsel for the Respondents would have no objection if time for filing reply is extended. .The matter would be heard next on August 10.