Jump to content
  • 0
devkmrer

Information reg Income Tax Evasion, Black Money & Illegal Demonetization of Notes

Question

devkmrer

Dear SirThis is to inform you regarding Mr. Mehmood Malik S/o Mohammed Akbar residing in I-18 DDA Flats Turkman Gate New Delhi 110006 who has evaded Income Tax Returns to the tune of 24-30 Crores and has recently demonetized Black Money in cash unto 3-4 crores in new currency notes. Moreover, he possess crores of unaccountable cash & gold jewelry. For years, he has evaded Income Tax through undisclosed black income and has strategically invested his black money in multiple benami properties such as 2-3 houses & 3 shops in Turkman Gate, Asaf Ali Road New Delhi. Apart from that, he also possess illegal properties through black money hoarding in Connaught Place and Zakir Nagar. He has converted his black money in old notes into new currency and parked his funds at bank accounts in Indian Overseas Bank Prakash Deep Building Tolstoy Marg New Delhi. He has committed multiple criminal offense by filing false & deceptive statements under provision of Section 239 under Income Tax Act. He is involved with black money, illegal assets, filed false Income Tax returns, evaded taxes & possess unaccountable wealth invested in cash, jewelry & various properties in New Delhi. Please do the needful as he is involved with multiple illegal & criminal acts & violated sections under Income Tax Act & Black Money through undisclosed Income & unaccountable illegal assets.Thank YouDevender Kumar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0
RAVEENA_O

You may submit the Tax Evasion Petition (TEP) before the DGIT (Investigation) New Delhi or its Branch having jurisdiction over your area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Prasad GLN

Remember that many of such applications filed by citizens were just filed and were branded as frivolous. Making such a complaint is very serious in nature, and you should enclose/possess all valid proofs for such allegations, and must establish the truth in your complaint prima facie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
RAVEENA_O

DGIT (Inv) is an exempted organisation and none of their actions are disclosed to public. The fact is that the evader is put under special watch and evidences are gathered over a period of time, co-relate it with sources and the modes operandi etc and then only they act. They don't just jump to the evader like the Police to conduct an investigation.

 

There are 5% patriots in this country and everybody is afraid of them. There is another 5% who are the worst in category who contravene the law, spoils everything. The 90% in between are good for nothing - call them the god fearing, who do nothing good or nothing bad. The mughals and Europeans arrived in tens or hundreds could capture the kingdoms and rule this nation for many centuries, because of this 90% attitude.

 

Be in the first 5%, be an Indian with self esteem, live for our motherland. Whether the officers will take action or otherwise is not known to many. Even it is possible that the officers may have oblique considerations or they may be pressurised. Remember, there are 5% amongst them also, who will not budge to such pressure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Answer this question...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Similar Content

    • momita
      By momita
      The CBDT has told the EC that disclosing the verification of election affidavits by the Director General of Income Tax (Investigation) under the Right to Informatio is not “feasible” since it would be in contravention of Section 138 of the Income Tax Act.
      The Commission, in letters written to CBDT in November 2017 and April this year, had sought clarification on whether the poll panel could allow the public to access reports on the verification of election affidavits by the Director General of Income Tax (Investigation) under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
      The EC, The Indian Express has learnt, is of the view that since a verification report is not an investigation report, its disclosure should not be restricted under Section 24 of the RTI Act, which exempts certain organisations from being covered under this law. This includes the Director General of Income Tax (DGIT).
      The Commission has further argued that such disclosures are in the interest of voters and will empower aggrieved or interested persons (such as losing candidates) to file a complaint or an FIR against the elected lawmaker under Section 125A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 for providing false information in the election affidavit.
      But in its response sent last month, the CBDT has told the EC that disclosing the verification report is not “feasible” since it would be in contravention of Section 138 of the Income Tax Act. Section 138 prescribes a general prohibition on furnishing any information with regard to an assessee under the IT Act. It has also mentioned that such disclosures are punishable.

      View full entry
    • momita
      By momita
      The Commission, in letters written to CBDT in November 2017 and April this year, had sought clarification on whether the poll panel could allow the public to access reports on the verification of election affidavits by the Director General of Income Tax (Investigation) under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
      The EC, The Indian Express has learnt, is of the view that since a verification report is not an investigation report, its disclosure should not be restricted under Section 24 of the RTI Act, which exempts certain organisations from being covered under this law. This includes the Director General of Income Tax (DGIT).
      The Commission has further argued that such disclosures are in the interest of voters and will empower aggrieved or interested persons (such as losing candidates) to file a complaint or an FIR against the elected lawmaker under Section 125A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 for providing false information in the election affidavit.
      But in its response sent last month, the CBDT has told the EC that disclosing the verification report is not “feasible” since it would be in contravention of Section 138 of the Income Tax Act. Section 138 prescribes a general prohibition on furnishing any information with regard to an assessee under the IT Act. It has also mentioned that such disclosures are punishable.

Announcements

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use & Privacy Policy