Raghuvinder Singh v. Additional Commissioner (Benami Prohibition Rajasthanand Approving Authority, Prohibition Of Benamitransaction Act, 1988.And Approving Authority, Prohibition Of

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR 1. S.B. Civil Writs No. 18701/2018 Raghuvinder Singh S/o Shri R.k. Singh, Aged About 51 Years,R/o V-2/4, Jaypee Green Land 1, Golf Course, Greater Noida,U.p. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Benami Transaction)And Initiating Officer Under The Prevention Of BenamiTransaction Act 2016, Room No. 250, Status Circle, Ncrb,Income Tax Office, JaipurAnd Initiating Officer Under The Prevention Of BenamiTransaction Act 2016, Room No. 250, Status Circle, Ncrb,Income Tax Office, Jaipur 2. Additional Commissioner (Benami Prohibition RajasthanAnd Approving Authority, Prohibition Of BenamiTransaction Act, 1988.And Approving Authority, Prohibition Of BenamiTransaction Act, 1988. 3. Union Of India Through Its Secretary, Income TaxDepartment, Government Of India, New Delhi.Department, Government Of India, New Delhi. ----Respondents Connected With 2. S.B. Civil Writs No. 18702/2018 Raghuvinder Singh S/o Shri R.k. Singh, Aged About 51 Years,R/o V-2/4, Jaypee Green Land 1, Golf Course, Greater Noida,U.p. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Benami Transaction)And Initiating Officer Under The Prevention Of BenamiTransaction Act 2016, Room No. 250, Status Circle, Ncrb,Income Tax Office, JaipurAnd Initiating Officer Under The Prevention Of BenamiTransaction Act 2016, Room No. 250, Status Circle, Ncrb,Income Tax Office, Jaipur 2. Additional Commissioner (Benami Prohibition RajasthanAnd Approving Authority, Prohibition Of BenamiTransaction Act, 1988.And Approving Authority, Prohibition Of BenamiTransaction Act, 1988. 3. Union Of India Through Its Secretary, Income TaxDepartment, Government Of India, New Delhi.Department, Government Of India, New Delhi. ----Respondents Raghuvinder Singh S/o Shri R.k. Singh, Aged About 51 Years,R/o V-2/4, Jaypee Green Land 1, Golf Course, Greater Noida,U.p. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Benami Transaction)And Initiating Officer Under The Prevention Of BenamiTransaction Act 2016, Room No. 250, Status Circle, Ncrb,Income Tax Office, Jaipur.And Initiating Officer Under The Prevention Of BenamiTransaction Act 2016, Room No. 250, Status Circle, Ncrb,Income Tax Office, Jaipur. 2. Additional Commissioner (Benami Prohibition RajasthanAnd Approving Authority, Prohibition Of BenamiTransaction Act, 1988.And Approving Authority, Prohibition Of BenamiTransaction Act, 1988. 3. Union Of India Through Its Secretary, Income TaxDepartment, Government Of India, New Delhi.Department, Government Of India, New Delhi. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manjeet Singh Ahluwalia, Adv. with Mr. Yash Sharma, Adv. & Mr. Laxmi Kant, Adv.with Mr. Yash Sharma, Adv. & Mr. Laxmi Kant, Adv. For Respondent(s): Mr. RB Mathur, Adv. with Mr. Nikhil Simlote, Adv.Simlote, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA Judgment / Order 27/08/2018 1.Petitioner has preferred these writ petitions assailing thenotice of attachment dated 22/12/2017 as well as the orderpassed by the approving authority of the even date. 2.Grounds have been raised regarding non-compliance ofprinciples of natural justice as well as non-compliance of theprovisions contained under the Benami Transaction (Prohibition)Act, 1988, specially Section 24 with regard to service of notice andalso with regard to application of mind relating to the order ofapproval. 3.Mr. RB Mathur appears for the respondent-caveator(Revenue) and submits that the matter is pending before theadjudicating authority where the Benamidar namely; Vimlesh hasalready submitted her objections and the petitioner, who is abeneficiary, if aggrieved, can also raise objections before theadjudicating authority. It is stated that the matter is to be takenup by the adjudicating authority day after tomorrow. 2.Grounds have been raised regarding non-compliance ofprinciples of natural justice as well as non-compliance of theprovisions contained under the Benami Transaction (Prohibition)Act, 1988, specially Section 24 with regard to service of notice andalso with regard to application of mind relating to the order ofapproval. 3.Mr. RB Mathur appears for the respondent-caveator(Revenue) and submits that the matter is pending before theadjudicating authority where the Benamidar namely; Vimlesh hasalready submitted her objections and the petitioner, who is abeneficiary, if aggrieved, can also raise objections before theadjudicating authority. It is stated that the matter is to be takenup by the adjudicating authority day after tomorrow. 4.Having noted the aforesaid, this Court finds that it would notbe appropriate for this Court at this stage to examine the veracityand legality of the notice of attachment issued way back as on22/12/2017 as of now as the matter is already pending before theadjudicating authority. However, all the objections, which thepetitioner has raised before this Court, can be taken up by himbefore the adjudicating authority and it would be for theadjudicating authority to decide and examine all the objectionsand pass a reasoned order. It is expected from the adjudicatingauthority to give reasonable time to the petitioner to put up hisobjections in writing and examine the entire issue thread-bearafter giving fair opportunity to all the parties. 5.Thus, at this stage, the writ petition is disposed of with theaforesaid observations. (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J