9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (5) TMI 1469X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the impugned order, dated 22.02.2025 under Section 24 (4)(b)(i) of the Act, 1988, as arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional and without jurisdiction and consequently, to set aside the same. 2. Heard Sri N.Naveen Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 3 and Ms.K.Mamata, learned Senior Standing Counsel, appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 4. Perused the record. 3. The brief facts of the case are that during the process of election to the State Legislative Assembly of the State of Telangana for the year 2023, criminal proceedings were initiated against the petitioners vide FIR No.1323 of 2023 on the file of Hayathnagar Police Station, R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as deposited into the account of the Principal Director of Income Tax, Hyderabad. 4. According to the respondents, the subsequent investigation was conducted by the Director of Income Tax (Investigation) Hyderabad. During the course of investigation summons under Section 131 of the Act, 1961 were issued to the petitioners to furnish sources of cash of Rs.2.00 crores seized by the Hayathnagar Police from their possession. None of them appeared nor furnished any information about sources of said cash. On receipt of information as it is a potential benami transaction, approval under Section 23 of the Act, 1988 was sought from the approving authority for conducting further enquiry. Accordingly summons under Section 19 of the Act, 1988 were iss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2.ITBA/COM/F/17/2024-25/1069982272 (1) 3.ITBA/COM/F/17/2024-25/1069982539 (1) 4.ITBA/COM/F/17/2024-25/1069982762 (1) 5.ITBA/COM/F/17/2024-25/1069983189 (1) 28.10.2024 Registered Post/Email Not complied 1.Sri Sampathi Shiva Kumar 2. Sri Tatikonda Mahender Reddy 3. Sri Nimma Vinay Kumar Reddy 4. Sri Nimma Vinay Kumar Reddy 5. Sri Surakanti Mahender Reddy failed to appear on 04.11.2024 2. Summons under Section 19 of PBPT Act 1.ITBA/COM/F/17/2024-25/1070161063 (1) 2.ITBA/COM/F/17/2024-25/1070161212 (1) 3.ITBA/COM/F/17/2024-25/1069982539 (1) 4.ITBA/COM/F/17/2024-25/1069982762 (1) 5.ITBA/COM/F/17/2024-25/10699983189 (1) 07.11.2024 Registered P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oners contended that respondent No.2 passed the impugned order, dated 22.02.2025 under Section 24 (4) (b)(i) of the Act, 1988 declaring the petitioners to be 'Benamidars' as per Section 2 (10) of the Act, 1988. With regard to the provisions and purport of the Act, 1988, he further submits that the existence of benami property has not been established by the respondent authorities and they have not been linked to the alleged seized cash to 'benami property', which could ultimately give the transaction a benami color. He further submitted that without establishing the existence of 'benami property' or the factum of benami transaction in relation to a Benami property, respondent No.1 has illegally classified the petitioners as 'Benamidars.' 6 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nami property.' In support of his contentions he placed reliance on the following judgments in T.Raja v. K.Visakh (2018) 100 Taxmann.com 256 (PBPTA-AT), Jaydayal Poddar (Deceased) through L.Rs and another v. MST Bibi Hazra and others (1974) 1 Supreme Court Cases 3, Mangathai Ammal (Died) through legal representatives and others v. Rajeswari and others (2020) 17 Supreme Court Cases 496'; Communication and Consultants and another v. Surendra Kerdile (2020) 16 Supreme Court Cases 411, Niharika Jain and others v. Union of India and others 2019 SCC Online Raj 1640; Calcutta Discount Co.Ltd v. Income Tax Officer, Companies District I Calcutta and another (1961) 41 ITR 191 and PHR Invest Educational Society v. UCO Bank and others (2024) 6 Su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der and came to the conclusion that the transaction is 'benami' and said cash seized is a 'benami property.' Further, it is also not the case of the petitioners that they are not being provided any opportunity to put up their case or the respondents have committed any breach of non compliance of principles of natural justice. Admittedly, the petitioners disown the said property seized and also did not choose to place before the authorities as to the details of ownership of the said property. 9. A perusal of the record would clearly show that the petitioners were given ample opportunity before passing the impugned order, as such under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court cannot sit over the impugned order passed by responden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
