Amar Pratap Developers Private Limited, Ground Floor,Room v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (Bpu), Room

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16949/2021 1. Balram Meghwal S/o Shri Ishwar Ram Meghwal, AgedAbout 39 Years, R/o M P Road, Behind Manoj Dal Mill,Sarvoday Basti Bikaner 334001.About 39 Years, R/o M P Road, Behind Manoj Dal Mill,Sarvoday Basti Bikaner 334001. 2. Amar Pratap Developers Private Limited, Ground Floor,Room No. 2, A-21, Sadul Ganj, Bikaner Through ItsDirector Shri Ashok Kumar Modi.Room No. 2, A-21, Sadul Ganj, Bikaner Through ItsDirector Shri Ashok Kumar Modi. ----Petitioners Versus 1. Adjudicating Authority, Prohibition Of Benami PropertyTransactions Act, 1988 (The Benami ProhibitionAmendment Act, 2016), B Wing, 9Th Floor, Lok NayakBhawan, Khan Market, New Delhi 110003.Transactions Act, 1988 (The Benami ProhibitionAmendment Act, 2016), B Wing, 9Th Floor, Lok NayakBhawan, Khan Market, New Delhi 110003. 2. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (Bpu), Room No.103J, New Central Revenue Building, Bhagwan Dass Road,Jaipur, Rajasthan 302005.103J, New Central Revenue Building, Bhagwan Dass Road,Jaipur, Rajasthan 302005. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s): Mr. Prakul Khurana through VC JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA 07/12/2021 Order 1.By way of the present writ petition, the petitioners havechallenged the order dated 11.11.2021 passed by the AdjudicatingAuthority, Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988(hereinafter referred to as the ‘Adjudicating Authority’). 2.Mr. Khurana, learned counsel for the petitioners, contendedthat during the proceedings the petitioners have raised objectionthat the proceedings are barred by limitation, yet the same hasnot been decided by the Adjudicating Authority and the matterwas adjourned to 15.12.2021. 3.It is argued that objection of the limitation is a pure questionof law and does not require any scrutiny of facts and hence, it wasrequired of the Adjudicating Authority to first decide thepreliminary issue. 4.Learned counsel placed various judgments in which it hasbeen held that question of limitation should be decided as apreliminary issue. 5.In the opinion of this Court, only a statute bifurcates theproceedings and enjoins upon Adjudicating Authority to decide thequestion of limitation as a preliminary issue and direction to decidethe questions/objections in piecemeal cannot be given by thisCourt. 6.In absence of any such statute or procedure provided by thecompetent authority, this Court is not persuaded to approve of thepetitioner’s contention that the question of limitation should bedecided as a preliminary issue. 7.This Court finds that the question as to whether theproceedings have lapsed or not has not even been decided by theAdjudicating Authority in the impugned order. 8.It will nevertheless be required of the Adjudicating Authorityto decide petitioner’s objection regarding limitation while passingthe final order. 9.With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition isdismissed. 10.Stay application too stands dismissed accordingly. (DINESH MEHTA),J