The prima facie belief of the officer is sufficient to issue a show cause notice under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Act, 1988.

JUDGMENT

The 1^st petitioner is an income tax assessee. The 2^nd petitioner is the wife of the 1^st petitioner and the 3^rd petitioner is their son. The 1^st petitioner is engaged in the business of gold ornaments. On 04.04.2019 an amount of Rs.1,38,43,600/- was seized from the car in which the petitioners were traveling. The seizure was effected by the Sub Inspector of Police, Pattambi Police Station and in connection with the same Ext.P1 FIR was registered. Subsequently, the petitioners were served with a summons under Section 131 of Income Tax Act requiring the petitioners to produce their books of account.

2. The petitioners appeared before the 2^nd respondent consequent to the said summons and an affidavit was submitted with an assertion that, the amount seized belongs to the 1^st petitioner and that he intends to declare the amount as income of the financial years ending 31.03.2019 and 31.03.2020. Thereafter the 1st petitioner filed the return including the said amounts therein.

3. In the meanwhile, Ext.P9 showcause notice was issued to the petitioner, under the Section 24(1) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Act, 1988 . This writ petition is submitted challenging Ext.P9, mainly on the ground that the said notice is issued by the officer concerned without any jurisdiction.

2. Today, when the matter came up for consideration, it is reported that, the same issue was considered by this Court in similar factual circumstances in W.P.(C.) No. 4193 of 2020, and after referring to various provisions contained in the Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Act, 1988 , it was held that, the only requirement before issuing a showcause notice under the provisions of the said act is the prima facie belief of the officer concerned that the party is a benamidar. A detailed scrutiny of the same is not necessary at the stage of notice. In that decision, it was held that, no challenge against the show cause notice can be entertained and it is for the party concerned, to contest the same by submitting their objections.

3. I am of the view that, the facts in this case are similar to that of the case decided by this Court in W.P.(C.) No. 4193 of 2020 and hence the principles laid down therein, can be applied herein also. Thus the challenge raised by the petitioners against Ext.P9 cannot be entertained and it is for the petitioners to submit objection to Ext.P9.

Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of, holding that the challenge against Ext.P9 cannot be entertained. Petitioners may submit an objection to Ext.P9 notice, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and thereupon, the 1^st respondent shall consider the said objection, and appropriate decision in accordance with law, shall be taken, after giving the petitioners an opportunity for being heard. It is observed that all the contentions raised by the petitioners with regard to the sustainability of the proceedings are kept open and what is decided in this writ petition is only the sustainability of the challenge against a show cause notice.

Sd/-