The exercise of cross-examination commences only after the proceedings for adjudication have commenced.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set aside the common order dated 25.10.2021 passed in W.P. No. 8540 of 2020.)

R. Mahadevan, J.

1. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides and also perused the materials available on record.

2. This writ appeal arises from a common order dated 25.10.2021 passed by the learned Judge in W.P.No.8540 of 2020.

3. The appellant has preferred the aforesaid writ petition to issue a writ of certiorari to call for the records from the file of the first respondent pertaining to the Order No.23/DCIT(BP)/2019-20 dated 23.01.2020 passed under section 24(4) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 (in short, “the Act”) and quash the same.

4. According to the appellant, he is involved in the business of money lending, chit fund and trading of old boxes and waste paper, besides made investments in Petrol Bunk, automobile trading company. While so, during the month of November, 2017, a search was conducted in his premises consequent to the search in the case of Mrs.V.K.Sasikala. During the course of the same, various documents were impounded and sworn statements were recorded. Subsequently, the appellant received notices under section 153C of the Act, for the assessment years 2012-13 to 2017-18, based on the material seized from the office of M/s.Ganga Foundations Pvt. Ltd, alleging that the appellant had received a sum of Rs.18 crores towards his share in the Spectrum Mall located at Perambur, Chennai.

5. The appellant further averred that while so, he received a show cause notice under section 24(1) of the Act on 01.11.2019 from the office of the first respondent as if he is a binamidar for the identified beneficial owner viz., Mrs.V.K.Sasikala with respect to his share in the Spectrum Mall and he was called upon to reply on or before 20.11.2019 as to why the same should not be held to be a benami property. Upon receipt of the same, the appellant was not able to file his reply, as the first respondent did not supply any of the relied upon documents. In the mean while, the application filed under section 245D(1) of the Act, before the Income Tax Settlement Commission for the assessment years 2009-10 to 2018-19, was dismissed by order dated 31.12.2019 on the premise that there is non-disclosure of true and full income and the assessment proceedings for the said assessment years, are pending before the assessing officer. In such circumstances, the appellant was served with an order dated 23.01.2020 under section 24(4) of the Act, through which, the first respondent has ordered for continuance of the provisional attachment till the order of the Adjudicating Authority is passed under section 26(3) of the Act. Challenging the same, the appellant preferred WP.No.8540 of 2020, which was dismissed by the learned Judge, along with connected writ petitions, vide order dated 25.10.2021. Therefore, the appellant is before this court with this appeal.

6.1. The prime contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant was not at all involved in the alleged transaction, which the first respondent is treating as benami transaction. According to the learned counsel, the Spectrum Mall was a joint venture between M/s.Ganga Foundations Pvt. Ltd (company) and two other land owners viz., D.V.Balaji and I.Shanmugadurai; the appellant purchased undivided shares of 4554 sq.ft and 6581 sq.ft. from the said I.Shanmugadurai through registered sale deeds bearing Doc.No.3140 of 2011 dated 27.06.2011 and Doc.No.245 of 2012 dated 30.01.2012 respectively; the appellant also purchased a shop in the said Mall from the company on 18.06.2012 through a sale deed bearing Doc.No.1817 of 2012. Owing to the business contingencies, the appellant has mortgaged the said properties altogether with Bank of India during 2014 and has been paying interest till date.

6.2. Adding further, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the first respondent, who in