TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 1907X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the PBPT Act. The respondent No.3 has formed a prima facie opinion that the property in question is being held by the benamidar and it is a fit case to refer it to the adjudicating authority. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and after perusing the material available on record and the order dated 18.11.2017 passed by the Initiating Officer under Section 24(4) of the PBPT Act, it cannot be said that the respondent No.3 has passed the order dated 18.11.2017 without there being any material on record. This Court at this stage cannot record a finding to the effect that Shri Aditya Lodha cannot be termed as benamidar or the property in question is not a benami property. It is for the adjudicating authority to adjudicate up ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... LLP and its designated partner Shri Aditya Lodha. (iv) By an appropriate writ, order or direction it may be declared that the provisions of the Act of 1988 are not attracted to the affairs and property of the petitioner; (v) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, respondents may be restrained from making any attachment/recovery, by adopting any coercive measure; and (vi) Any other appropriate direction or order which this Hon ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be granted. Brief facts of the case are that search and seizure proceeding under the provisions of Income Tact Act was conducted against the petitioner on 10.08.2017. During the course of search oper ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 24(5) of the PBPT Act, the adjudicating authority respondent No.4 issued a show cause notice to Shri Aditya Lodha under section 26(1) of the PBPT Act on 18.12.2017 and asked him to submit his response by 30.01.2018 either personally or through an advocate/authorized representative. Being aggrieved with this, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition while claiming the reliefs as quoted above. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order dated 18.11.2017 passed by the respondent No.3 is absolutely illegal and, therefore, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. It is contended that the transaction questioned by the respondent No.3 in the order dated 18.11.2017 does not fall in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he order dated 18.11.2017 passed by the Initiating Officer under Section 24(4) of the PBPT Act, it cannot be said that the respondent No.3 has passed the order dated 18.11.2017 without there being any material on record. This Court at this stage cannot record a finding to the effect that Shri Aditya Lodha cannot be termed as benamidar or the property in question is not a benami property. It is for the adjudicating authority to adjudicate upon the matter, referred to it by the Initiating Officer, after providing opportunity of hearing to Shri Aditya Lodha as per the provisions of Section 26 of the PBPT Act. Hence, no case for interference is made out, therefore, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed in limine. S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
