(Kailash Assudani_ v. Commissioner Of Income Tax)_
High Court
16 Aug 2017 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · mphc_db_jbp
Parties
(Kailash Assudani_ v. Commissioner Of Income Tax)_
Date of order
16 Aug 2017
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In (Kailash Assudani_ v. Commissioner Of Income Tax)_, the High Court (2017) dismissed the appeal under Section 24 of the Income-tax Act. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
16-08-2017
Shri Pratyush Tripathi, Advocate for the appellant.
The challenge in the present appeal is to an order passed by learnedSingle Bench on 03.08.2017, whereby the writ petition filed by theappellant against an order passed restraining the appellant fromtransferring or changing the nature of property till passing of an orderby Adjudicating Authority under the Prohibition of Benami PropertyTransactions Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to �The Act�)remained unsuccessful.
The sole argument of learned counsel for the appellant is that thedocuments necessary to submit response was not supplied by theInitiating Officer therefore, the proceedings have been conducted in anarbitrary manner. However, it is admitted by learned counsel for theappellant that all documents have now been produced before theAdjudicating Authority who has fixed the hearing on 23.08.2017.
In this view of the matter, the argument of learned counsel for theappellant is that he is losing a forum of decision making process to showthat there are not sufficient grounds for initiating proceedings againsthim. The alternative argument is that Adjudicating Authority should bedirected to treat the objections raised by the petitioner and pass anorder first on such preliminary objections.
We do not find any merit in the present appeal. It is the AdjudicatingAuthority who is to decide the question of Benami nature of theproperty. The proceedings under Section 24 of the Act contemplates theissuance of show cause notice as to why the property specified in thenotice should not be treated as Benami property. However, thesubstantive order of treating the property as Benami is required to bepassed by Adjudicating Authority under Section 26 of the Act only.Therefore, the appellant is at liberty to take all such plea of law andfacts as may be available to the appellant before the AdjudicatingAuthority. The Adjudicating Authority shall decide the Benami nature ofthe property in accordance with law.Certified Copy as per rules.
(HEMANT GUPTA)CHIEF JUSTICE
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)JUDGE
anu
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.