Fa/423/2022 Of The Initiating Officer And Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S. Kavita Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd

Digitallysigned bySANDHYASANDHYABHAGUBHAGUWADHWAWADHWADate:2022.12.0518:04:48+0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYCIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.423 OF 2022 The Initiating Officer & DeputyCommissioner of Income Tax Benami Prohibition Unit-2, Mumbai... Appellant v/s. M/s. Kavita Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. .. Respondent Mr. Suresh Kumar for appellant. … Ms. Ragini Singh a/w Ms. Ashwani Taneja, Mr. Sankalp Malik i/b. RRA Legal &Ragini Singh & Associate for respondent. … CORAM : K. R. SHRIRAM & KAMAL KHATA, JJ.DATED : 30TH NOVEMBER, 2022. P.C. : 1.The respondent herein had purchased a property sometime in March2013. The property was provisionally attached on an order passed by theadjudicating authority under Section 24(4) of the Prohibition of BenamiProperty Transaction Act, 1988 (“PBPT Act”). That attachment was challengedby respondent before the Appellate Tribunal for PBPT Act. 2. By judgment dated 3rd September, 2019 the appeal of respondent was allowed. The attachment order was set aside. Against that order, thedepartment, i.e., appellant herein has approached this Court by way of thisappeal. The appeal was lodged sometime on or about 13th November, 2019. 3.Thereafter, the Apex Court has considered the various provisions ofPBPT Act in Union of India v/s. Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd.,1in which theApex Court was pleased to hold that the concerned authorities cannot initiateor continue criminal prosecution or confiscation proceedings for transactionsentered into prior to the coming into force of PBPT Act i.e. 25th October, 2016. 4. The Apex Court further held that as a consequence of the said finding,all such prosecutions or confiscation proceedings shall stand quashed. BothMr. Suresh Kumar and Ms. Singh state that the judgment covers the facts inthe case at hand and of course Mr. Suresh Kumar places a Caveat that he doesnot know whether any review petition has been filed in the Supreme Court. 5. Admittedly, in this case, the respondent’s transaction happened on orabout 18th March, 2013 which is certainly before 25th October, 2016.Therefore, as held by the Apex Court in Ganpati Dealcom (supra) the saidconfiscation proceedings cannot stand. Therefore, appeal dismissed. (KAMAL KHATA, J.) (K.R. SHRIRAM, J.) 12022 SCC Online SC 1064