My recommendation to all individuals facing fake 498a, PWDV AND DP cases where the in-laws have claimed exorbitant dowry giving is to put a TAX-EVASIVE-PETITION against them,THE TEP can also be reported online via CPGRAMS PORTAL, then follow your petition via RTI
Personal experience use CPGRAMS rather than offline posts as it is very difficult to track offline posted TEP
sample draft is produced below for fellow warriors.
Try to keep records of PAN numbers of inlaws before hand if you can as it work like a catalyst in TEP if you have the PAN numbers.
(a sample draft)
Date: Friday, July 13, 2018
To,
Member (Investigation),
Central Board of Direct Taxes,
Department of Revenue,
Ministry of Finance,
North Block. New Delhi-110001
Subject: Tax Evasion Petition For Investigation Into Source of Income and Tax Liabilities Against Following People
-
Wife full name ( PAN No. : Xxxxxxxxxxx )
(Aadhar No.Xxxxxxxxxx) -
Shri. Xxx xxxx (FIL) PAN No. : Xxxxxxxxxxx )
(Aadhar No.Xxxxxxxxxx) -
Mrs. Xxxx xxxxx (MIL ) PAN No. : Xxxxxxxxxxx )
(Aadhar No.Xxxxxxxxxx) -
Mr.XXX XXXXX (BIL) PAN No. : Xxxxxxxxxxx )
(Aadhar No.Xxxxxxxxxx)Honorable Sir/ Madam,
This is a tax evasion complaint against below four members with the details are
Wife full name ( PAN No. : Xxxxxxxxxxx ) (Aadhar No.Xxxxxxxxxx) )
Residence Address: xxxxyyyyy xxxxx zzzzz Jaipur ,Rajasthan.
Mobile Number: ,
- FIL COMPLETE DETAILS AND ADDRESS,
- MIL COMPLETE DETAILS AND ADDRESS ,
- BIL COMPLETE DETAILS AND ADDRESS
Background
I Gaurav Bammi , <<<own address>>>>> wish to bring to your kind notice the following points.
AA) I got married to <wife name>>> on 17th Nov 2010 at Hotel Ajanta Continental, Dehradun according to Hindu Rites in presence of caste elders.
My wife <<<>>>> has framed a false Dowry and domestic violence complaint under Section 498A and 12 of PWDVA Act 2005 r/w s. 3, 17,18,19,20,21,22,23. It has been claimed by <<<<>wife>>>>, <<<<MiL>>>> in her own admission that Shri. <<<<FIL>>> family member had gave 60 Tolas of Gold and 250 Grams of Silver, Cash of (5 +15=20)20 lakh on different occasions and spent Rs 15 Lakh in marriage along with cash, furniture, electronic item TV, Fridge, utensils and other complete house hold required on 17th Nov, 2010 (in financial year 2010-2011), If we count the total amount it will be more than 35 Lac.
BB) Interestingly <<<<FIL>>>> has also married his other daughter in the year2016, even if we assume that same amount of money was spend in her marriage as alleged in the complaint. It needs to be verified how come <<<<FIL>>>> amassed such an astonishing wealth for these marriages.
<<<FIL>>>> married his younger daughter ( S.I.L. NAME ) at Hotel Marriott ,Jawahar Circle, Jaipur, where it is presumed that he must have spent an around 50-60 lakh on her wedding. It means he spend more than 35+50= 90 Lacks Rupees on these marriages.
CC) It becomes my duty as a patriot and citizen of India to ask the authorities to verify the source of income and tax returns filed by <<<<FIL>>>>. It is submitted that Shri Roshan Lal Jasuja was a normal field development officer with LIC and <<<<BIL>>>> is Assistant professor, where from he bought such huge sum of money for said dowry and has carried other liabilities of family besides having other liabilities is a matter of investigation which your esteemed department has the jurisdiction to investigate.
Please investigate as to whether <<<<FIL>>>> & <<<<WIFE>>>>>has ever shown such a huge amount as his / her income and paid taxes on the same (this income does not include only amount allegedly spend on dowry items but also amount spend on other liabilities of his family and invested / spend on the properties owned by him) and if they had purchased the items of dowry from shops / showrooms after paying proper taxes for their purchase.
Ground for complaint
As <<<<FIL>>>> & <<<<WIFE>>>> (as claimed) had spent Rs 35.00 lacks in financial Year 2010-2011 so his income tax return and source of fund of Rs 35.00 lacks may be verified and tax should be collected as per provision of Income Tax.
Further careful perusal of the Dowry 498A and PWDVA petition & Attached Complaint letter of <<<WIFE>>>>, hints provision of section 68, 69,69A, 69B, 69C & 69D under Income Tax Act of 1961 are applicable on <<<FIL>>> & <<<WIFE>>>>,as far as in my knowledge. However, there may be many other provisions of income tax which is best known to Honorable Income tax authority.
The section 68 deals with cash credits proving identity of the creditor, capacity of the creditor, genuineness of the transaction are the important things of this section. Section 69 & 69A, B deals with unexplained investment, unexplained money & investment not fully disclosed in books of accounts.
The Section 69C deals with the unexplained expenditure, the important requirement of this section is that an expenditure has been found to have been incurred by an assesse in any financial year and the assess fails to indicate satisfactory source of such expenditure. ITS my duty as a patriot and citizen of India to ask the authorities to verify the source of income and tax returns filed by (<<<FIL & WIFE>>>) . In case investigations are instituted through local authorities, it will be able to unearth huge revenue from <<<<FIL & WIFE>>>>). It is therefore requested that necessary investigations may kindly be made against <<<<FIL & WIFE>>>>in the interest of justice and requirement of law. As per Income tax rules, income source of (<<<<FIL AND WIFE>>>>) must be checked and recovery should be made from them against the expenditures they have claimed to made in the marriage of their daughters. <<<<Fil and wife>>>> income and source of fund should be verified from financial years 2010-11 to till date and share the tax return copies with me. The authority is under bounden duty to investigate the said information since it relates and its refusal may prejudice the appellant upon which an PWDVA compliant has been registered. Since criminal jurisprudence, it is clear that innocent person should not be convicted and a person is presumed innocent unless found guilty/convicted. I request you to kindly take cognizance of my complaint and honor the aforesaid Judgment to verify their expenditure and initiate action against <<<<FIL AND WIFE>>>> as for tax evasion if any.
There is also an apprehension that <<<<FIL AND WIFE>>>>may provide false Information to Tax Authorities. So, I would also like to request that the name of investigating officer be provided to me who will be looking at this matter, as there is every apprehension that the information provided to me will be misleading due to political pressure and beauraucratic contacts of <<<<FIL AND WIFE>>>> .I may be given the due prize money as per income tax guidelines for revealing this to the authorities.
Thanking you.
With Regards
<<<<<Your name and address>>>>
Enclosures :-
1. PWDVA compliant copy
2. Affidavit copy
3. Judgement of the Honorable High Court of Delhi in the case of “Neera Singh Vs. The State”
Copy to:
1. C.C.I.T,
101,Central Revenue Building,,Bhagwan Das Road,Statue Circle,JanpathJaipur-Pin-302005
2. DGIT (Investigations),Income Tax Department. Dept of Revenue.233Central Revenue Building,
Bhagwan Das Road,Statue Circle Janpath, Jaipur-302005.
Copy of judgement
Enclosure no.3
Judgement of the Honorable High Court of Delhi in the case of “Neera Singh Vs. The State”
Delhi High Court
Smt. Neera Singh vs The State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) … on 23 February, 2007
Equivalent citations: 138 (2007) DLT 152, I (2007) DMC 545
Author: S N Dhingra
Bench: S N Dhingra
JUDGMENT Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.
1. This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been made on behalf of petitioner for
quashing/setting aside the order dated 20th July, 2006 passed by learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Delhi whereby the learned ASJ upheld the order of the Trial Court discharging appellants
Bishan Pal Singh, Smt. Santosh Devi, Gajendar Singh and Toshan Singh. Bishan Pal Singh is the
father-in-law of the complainant, Smt. Santosh Devi is the mother-in-law of complainant and
Gajender Singh and Toshan Singh are the brothers-in-law (husband’s brothers) of the complainant.
The complainant made allegations involving almost every member of the family of her in laws.
Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, after going through the evidence observed as under:
Perusal of record shows that the allegations of the complainant are against the accused person
except the accused husband with respect of taunting for bringing insufficient dowry. But there is not
a single allegation that the accused persons made any subsequent demand for dowry and
consequent harassment for not meeting with their demands. Admittedly the complainant and her
husband and in laws of the complainant were staying at Ghaziabad. Whereas the complainant most
of the time resided with her husband at Riwari. It was held in AIR 1996(Supreme Court) 67 that
taunting for not bringing sufficient dowry is distinct from demand of dowry and should not be
confused with. Though taunting for bringing insufficient dowry is also an uncivilized act but does
not come within the purview of Section 498A, sufficient to constitute the offence i.e. the cruelty to
the complainant with respect to not fulfilllment of demand of of dowry. There is not a single
allegation that except for the alleged taunting the complainant was ever harassed with respect to
further demand of dowry. Hence the prima facie case under Section 498A is not made out against
accused Bishan Pal, Santosh Devi, Gazender Singh and Kaushan Singh.
2. Against this order, the petitioner preferred a revision petition before the Court of Sessions and the learned Sessions Judge after considering the entire material observed as under:
In the present case, husband, Yashwant Singh, after marriage was residing separately from his parent and brothers. He was residing at Rewari, Haryana. The Ld. Trial Court found that allegation of the complainant are against the husband only. There were no specific allegations against the accused persons, namely, Bishan Pal Singh, Smt. Santosh Devi, Gajender Singh and Toshan Singh.
The Ld. Trial Court was of the opinion that there was not even a single allegation that the accused persons made any subsequent demand of dowry and harassed the complainant for not fulfilling their demand. The complainant most of the time was residing with her husband at Rewari, Haryana. There might have been one or two instances of taunting for not bringing sufficient dowry but they are not sufficient enough to attract Section 498A. There are not specific allegations with respect to entrustment of dowry items to the accused persons. Since, the complainant stayed with her husband at Rewari, Haryana, the entrustment of dowry articles can be presumed to be to the husband. There were no specific allegations of entrustment to the accused person, namely, Bishan Pal Singh, Smt.Santosh Devi, Gajender Singh and Toshan Singh.
3. A perusal of the complaint would show that as per allegations dowry demand was made even before marriage i.e. at the time of engagement and an AC was demanded from her father by her in-laws and her father had assured that AC would be given at the time of marriage. However, she told her father You have given car and AC at the demand of in laws, what will happen if they demand a flat tomorrow?. Despite her this conversation with her father and despite her knowing that dowry demand had already been made, she married in the same family irrespective of the fact that she was well-educated lady and was an engineer and her brother was in police. In fact, these kinds of allegations made after breakdown of the marriage show the mentality of the complainant. I consider where these kinds of allegations are made, the police should simultaneously register a case under Dowry Prohibition Act (in short the ‘Act’) against the parents of the complainant as well, who married their daughter despite demand of dowry. Section 3 of the Act prohibits giving and taking of dowry. If a woman of grown up age and well educated gets married to a person despite dowry demand, she and her family becomes accomplice in the crime under Dowry Prohibition Act.
4. Now-a-days, exorbitant claims are made about the amount spent on marriage and other ceremonies and on dowry and gifts. In some cases claim is made of spending crores of rupees on dowry without disclosing the source of income and how funds flowed. I consider time has come that courts should insist upon disclosing source of such funds and verification of income from tax returns and police should insist upon the compliance of the Rules under Dowry Prohibition Act and should not entertain any complaint, if the rules have not been complied with. Rule 2 of the Dowry Prohibition(Maintenance of List of Presents to the Bride and Bridegroom) Rules, 1985 reads as under:
2. RULES IN ACCORDANCE WITH WHICH LISTS OF PRESENTS ARE TO BE MAINTAINED.-(1)
The list of presents which are given at the time of the marriage to the bride shall be maintained by
the bride.
(2) The list of presents which are given at the time of the marriage to the bridegroom shall be
maintained by the bridegroom.
(3) Every list of presents referred to in Sub-rule(1) or Sub-rule(2)-
(a) shall be prepared at the time of the marriage or as soon as possible after the marriage;
(b) shall be in writing;
(c) shall contain:
(i) a brief description of each present;
(ii) the approximate value of the present;
(iii) the name of the person who has given the present; and
(iv) where the person giving the present is related to the bride or bridegroom, a description of such
relationship.
(d) shall be signed by both the bride and the bridegroom.
5. The Metropolitan Magistrates should take cognizance of the offence under the Act in respect of the offence of giving dowry whenever allegations are made that dowry was given as a consideration of marriage, after demand. Courts should also insist upon compliance with the rules framed under the Act and if rules are not complied with, an adverse inference should be drawn. If huge cash amounts are alleged to be given at the time of marriage which are not accounted anywhere, such cash transactions should be brought to the notice of the Income Tax Department by the Court so that source of income is verified and the person is brought to law. It is only because the Courts are not insisting upon compliance with the relevant provisions of law while entertaining such complaints and action is taken merely on the statement of the complainant, without any verification that a large number of false complaints are pouring in.
6. I consider that the kinds of vague allegations as made in the complaint by the petitioner against every member of the family of husband cannot be accepted by any court at their face value and the allegations have to be scrutinized carefully by the Court before framing charge. A perusal of the complaint of the petitioner would show that she made all kinds of allegations against her husband regarding beating, that her husband was having illicit relationship with 35 girls; he forced her to write suicide note, abused her, taunted her, threatened and told her that he was getting another bride of more richer family while she was in Rewari with her husband and she made telephone call to her parents who came to Rewari and took her to parental home. She had also given phone to one of her friends Jigyasa. A perusal of the statement of Jigyasa would show that she told Jigyasa that it was her husband who was torturing her and behaving with cruelty. However, in her complaint, she made vague and omnibus allegations against every other family members. The statement made by her and other witnesses have been scrutinized by me, except vague allegations and allegations of taunting, there are no allegations of perpetuating cruelty on her by any of the four respondents in order to compel her to bring more dowry or any particular items.
7. In view of my foregoing discussion, I find no reason to disagree with the order of two Courts below. The petition is hereby dismissed being devoid of merits.
"Breaking the Silence: Exposing Misuse of Matrimonial Laws in India"
,A personal journey through false allegations, broken systems, and the fight for justice as a husband and seafarer. 