IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R. MAHADEVAN, MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, JJ.
Dinesh Chand Surana - Appellant
Versus
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Benami Prohibition) Chennai & Others - Respondent
Writ Appeal Nos. 1598, 1599 and 1600 of 2018 & CMP. Nos. 12848, 12849 & 12850 of 2018
Decided On : 01-09-2022
Income Tax Act - Benami Property Transactions Act - Section 132, 133A, 24(4) - The court dismissed the writ petitions challenging the orders passed under section 24(4) of the Benami Property Transactions Act, holding that the orders were provisional in nature and subject to judicial review before the adjudicating authority. The appellant was directed to raise all contentions before the adjudicating authority.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, engaged in the business of steel and power, was issued show cause notices under section 24(1) of the Benami Property Transactions Act, alleging ownership of windmills. The appellant sought complete set of documents for submission but only received a part. The respondent passed orders under section 24(4) despite an interim stay granted by the court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the orders under section 24(4) were provisional and subject to judicial review before the adjudicating authority. The appellant was directed to raise all contentions before the adjudicating authority.
Issues: The issues involved the furnishing of complete set of documents to the appellant, passing of orders under section 24(4) despite an interim stay, and the applicability of principles of natural justice.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the orders under section 24(4) were provisional and subject to judicial review before the adjudicating authority. The appellant was directed to raise all contentions before the adjudicating authority.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeals and directed the appellant to raise all contentions before the adjudicating authority.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: W.A. No. 1598 of 2018:- Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the Order dated 02.07.2018 passed in WP No. 12848 of 2018 on the file of this Court.
W.A. No. 1599 of 2018:- Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the Order dated 02.07.2018 passed in WP No. 13160 of 2018 on the file of this Court.
W.A. No. 1600 of 2018:- Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the Order dated 02.07.2018 passed in WP No. 13161 of 2018 on the file of this Court.
Common Judgment: R. Mahadevan, J.
These three intra-court appeals arise from a common order dated 02.07.2018 passed by the learned Judge in WP.Nos.12848, 13160 and 13160 of 2018.
2. The appellant herein is the petitioner in all the aforesaid writ petitions and the case projected by him would run thus:
2.1. The appellant is an individual engaged in the business of steel and power and he is the Managing Director of M/s.Surana Industries Ltd & M/s.Surana Power Ltd. He is an assessee on the file of the ACIT, Central Circle - 2(3), Chennai, in PAN No.AACPS3233K and has been regularly filing his return of income within the prescribed time.
2.2. While so, based on certain credible information, a search operation under section 132 of The Income Tax Act, 1961, (in short, “the Act“) was conducted in the premises of M/s.Surana Corporation Limited and in his residence between 07.11.2017 and 11.11.2017 as per the instructions given by the Deputy Director of Income Tax (Investigation Wing). During the course of the same, several sworn statements were recorded, besides impounding documents at the time of inspection. According to the appellant, he is only a shareholder in M/s.Surana Corporation Limited and is not holding any position in the said company.
2.3. Subsequent to the search operation, the first respondent in WP.No.12848 of 2018 / respondent in other two writ petitions viz., Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Benami Prohibition) issued show cause notices dated 26.02.2018, which were served on the appellant on 01.03.2018, alleging that the appellant is the beneficial owner of the assets in the nature of wind mills acquired by M/s. Bell Tower Enterprises LLP. It was further stated in the said show cause notices that a survey under section 133A of the Act was conducted in the premises of M/s.Sayso Exim Pvt Ltd., at No.56A/1, Pillayar Koil Street, Tondiarpet, Chennai - 600 081 on 09.03.2017, during which, certain documents were impounded and the statement of Mr. I. Prabhakaran, Director of M/s. Sayso Exim Private Limited and Mr. Vishnu Sharma and Mr. Purushothaman, Directors of M/s. Vinayaga Infra Pvt Ltd., were also recorded; and on the basis of the statements recorded from the said persons, the department proceeded to issue the said show cause notices.
2.4. Upon receipt of the show cause notices, the appellant sent a reply dated 12.03.2018 and sought for copies of the complete set of documents, which are morefully relied on in the show cause notices dated 26.02.2018. However, he was not given the complete set of documents as required, but only certain copies of the documents. He again requested the respondent to furnish the remaining documents so as to enable him to submit the detailed written submission to the show cause notices, by letter dated 23.03.2018, which was not considered.
2.5. Thereafter, on 09.04.2018, without complete set of documents, the appellant filed a preliminary written submission to the show cause notices dated 26.02.2018. While so, the respondent sent a communication dated 14.05.2018, stating that the department had received additional information from the Deputy Director of Income Tax (Investigation Wing) with respect to the offences committed under the provisions of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 (in short, “PBPT Act“) and hence, calling upon the appellant to submit his reply on or before 21.05.2018. In response, the appe
The orders under section 24(4) of the Benami Property Transactions Act are provisional and subject to judicial review before the adjudicating authority.
The court emphasized that the proceedings under section 24 of the Act only require a recording of prima facie opinion as to the benami nature of the transaction and that the principles of natural jus....
The proceedings under Section 24 of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, require a recording of prima facie opinion as to the benami nature of the transaction. The Act mandates ....
The exercise of cross-examination commences only after the proceedings for adjudication have commenced.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a jurisdictional challenge under the Benami Act must demonstrate an ex facie erroneous assumption of jurisdiction by the authorities. The cour....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.