Home Case Index All Cases Benami Property Benami Property + HC Benami Property - 2019 (7) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (7) TMI 275 - HC - Benami PropertyShow cause notice u/s 24(1) of Benami Act - disposal of objection by passing speaking order before passing final order - Benami transaction - attachment orders - show cause as to why the property in question not be treated as “benami property” within the meaning of Section 2(9)(C) of the Benami Act? - HELD THAT:- The contention and reliance upon the judgment of GKN DRIVESHAFTS (INDIA) LTD. VERSUS ITO [2002 (11) TMI 7 - SUPREME COURT] is made by contending that Section 24(1) of the Benami Act and Section 147 are adopting the same language and therefore, are parimateria. The Court is unable to accept such contention as the sphere and operation of Section 24 of the Benami Act and Section 147 are completely different. Section 24 of the Benami Act and the subsequent provisions are for the purpose of coming to conclusion as to whether the property in question is to be treated as benami property whereas operation of Section 147 and the subsequent provisions, viz. Sections 148 to 153 would be operating while the process for assessing or reassessing of the income is undertaken by the concerned officer. Therefore, contention of passing a separate speaking order to the objections raised cannot be accepted. When the petitioner filed reply to the show cause notice on 18.04.2019, there is nothing in such reply which can be termed to be objection of preliminary nature which would be required to be dealt with before passing final order. The only objection that comes near to the contention raised by learned Advocate for the petitioner is non-supply of the documents. This, in the opinion of the Court, is also an objection on merits which can be and should be dealt with in the final order and therefore, subsequent communication dated 30.04.2019 appears to be an afterthought to prevent respondent No.1 from proceeding any further as per the provisions of the Benami Act and hence, the Court is not inclined to entertain this petition.
|