+ W.p.(C) v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax & Ors

$~70 to 77 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ W.P.(C) 10604/2023 & CM APPL. 41160/2023 SHASHI KANT CHAURASIA SHASHI KANT CHAURASIA ..... Petitioner Through: Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rohit Jain, Mr. Aniket D. Agarwal, Mr. Saksham Singhal, Advocates. Advocate with Mr. Rohit Jain, Mr. Aniket D. Agarwal, Mr. Saksham Singhal, Advocates. versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Sr. Standing Counsel and Mr. Sanjeev Menon, Jr. Standing Counsel.Counsel and Mr. Sanjeev Menon, Jr. Standing Counsel. Mr. Purushottam Sharma Tripathi, Mr. Abhishek Tripathi, Advocates for R-4. Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Yash Raj Samant, Mr. Ravi Chandra and Mr. Amit, Advocate for R-5 to 13. (71) + W.P.(C) 10605/2023 & CM APPL. 41162/2023 MAYANK CHAURASIA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Rohit Jain, Mr. Aniket D. Agarwal, Mr. Saksham Singhal, Advocates. versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ORS. ..... Respondents Through:Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Sr. Standing Counsel and Mr. Sanjeev Menon, Jr. Counsel and Mr. Sanjeev Menon, Jr. W.P.(C) 10604/2023 etc. This is a digitally signed order. Standing Counsel. Mr. Purushottam Sharma Tripathi, Mr. Abhishek Tripathi, Advocates for R-4. Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Yash Raj Samant, Mr. Ravi Chandra and Mr. Amit, Advocate for R-5 to 13. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ORS. (73) + W.P.(C) 10811/2023 & CM APPL. 41852/2023 RAJIV CHAURASIA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Rohit Jain, Mr. Aniket D. Agarwal, Mr. Saksham Singhal, Advocates.versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Sr. Standing Counsel and Mr. Sanjeev Menon, Jr. Standing Counsel. Counsel and Mr. Sanjeev Menon, Jr. Standing Counsel. Mr. Purushottam Sharma Tripathi, Mr. Abhishek Tripathi, Advocates for R-4.Mr. Abhishek Tripathi, Advocates for R-4. Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Yash Raj Samant, Mr. Ravi Chandra and Mr. Amit, Advocate for R-5 to 13.with Mr. Yash Raj Samant, Mr. Ravi Chandra and Mr. Amit, Advocate for R-5 to 13. (74) + W.P.(C) 10815/2023 & CM APPL. 41926/2023 VIJAY ANAND CHAURASIA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Rohit Jain, Mr. Aniket D. Agarwal, Mr. Saksham Singhal, Advocates. Agarwal, Mr. Saksham Singhal, Advocates. versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Sr. Standing Counsel and Mr. Sanjeev Menon, Jr. Standing Counsel.Counsel and Mr. Sanjeev Menon, Jr. Standing Counsel. Mr. Purushottam Sharma Tripathi, Mr. Abhishek Tripathi, Advocates for R-4.Mr. Abhishek Tripathi, Advocates for R-4. Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Yash Raj Samant, Mr. Ravi Chandra and Mr. Amit, Advocate for R-5 to 13. with Mr. Yash Raj Samant, Mr. Ravi Chandra and Mr. Amit, Advocate for R-5 to 13. (75) + W.P.(C) 10821/2023 & CM APPL. 41939/2023 ANAND KUMAR CHAURASIA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Rohit Jain, Mr. Aniket D. Agarwal, Mr. Saksham Singhal, Advocates. versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ORS. versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ORS. Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Yash Raj Samant, Mr. Ravi Chandra and Mr. Amit, Advocate for R-5 to 13. (77) + W.P.(C) 10826/2023 & CM APPL. 41949/2023 NAVNEET CHAURASIA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Rohit Jain, Mr. Aniket D. Agarwal, Mr. Saksham Singhal, Advocates. Agarwal, Mr. Saksham Singhal, Advocates. versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Sr. Standing Counsel and Mr. Sanjeev Menon, Jr. Standing Counsel.Counsel and Mr. Sanjeev Menon, Jr. Standing Counsel. Mr. Purushottam Sharma Tripathi, Mr. Abhishek Tripathi, Advocates for R-4. Mr. Abhishek Tripathi, Advocates for R-4. Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Yash Raj Samant, Mr. Ravi Chandra and Mr. Amit, Advocate for R-5 to 13.with Mr. Yash Raj Samant, Mr. Ravi Chandra and Mr. Amit, Advocate for R-5 to 13. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD (77) + W.P.(C) 10826/2023 & CM APPL. 41949/2023 NAVNEET CHAURASIA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Rohit Jain, Mr. Aniket D. Agarwal, Mr. Saksham Singhal, Advocates. Agarwal, Mr. Saksham Singhal, Advocates. versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Sr. Standing Counsel and Mr. Sanjeev Menon, Jr. Standing Counsel.Counsel and Mr. Sanjeev Menon, Jr. Standing Counsel. Mr. Purushottam Sharma Tripathi, Mr. Abhishek Tripathi, Advocates for R-4. Mr. Abhishek Tripathi, Advocates for R-4. Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Yash Raj Samant, Mr. Ravi Chandra and Mr. Amit, Advocate for R-5 to 13.with Mr. Yash Raj Samant, Mr. Ravi Chandra and Mr. Amit, Advocate for R-5 to 13. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD O R D E R10.04.2024 % 1. The Petitioners have approached this Court challenging the proceedings initiated against them under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 and the Order dated 28.06.2023 passed by the Adjudicating Authority confirming an order of Provisional Attachment Order passed under Section 24(4) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988. 2.The principal contention of the Petitioners is that the provisions of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act are not attracted in the facts of the present case. 3.Notice was issued by this Court in the present writ petitions and this Court had directed that no coercive action to be taken against the Petitioners. 4.Pleadings are complete. The principal objection taken by the Respondent in the counter affidavit is that there is an alternate remedy under Section 46 of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act and this Court ought not to entertain the writ petition in the presence of an alternate remedy. 5.When this Court suggested that the Petitioners should approach the Tribunal, the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners accepted the suggestion given by the Court. 6.In view of the fact that the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners fairly accepted the suggestion of the Court, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petitions permitting the Petitioners to approach the Tribunal within a period of six weeks from today. 7.The direction to the Respondents not to take coercive action against the Petitioners shall continue till the Appellate Tribunal adjudicates on the stay application filed by the Petitioners along with the appeal filed by the Petitioners in the Tribunal. 8.Needless to state that since the principal contention raised in the writ petition is the applicability of the Benami Act in the facts of present cases, the Tribunal while adjudicating the applications for stay will take into consideration as to whether the Benami Act is applicable at all in the facts and circumstances of the cases. 9.It is always open for the Petitioners to approach this Court in case the application of stay is decided adverse to the interest of the Petitioners. It is always open for the Tribunal at that juncture to consider as to whether the direction of no coercive action as directed by the Court should continue or not. 10.It is made clear that this Court has not made any observation on the merits of the case. The Tribunal is requested to consider the case on its own merits uninfluenced by the fact that the writ petitions have been disposed of as withdrawn. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. APRIL 10, 2024 hsk SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J W.P.(C) 10604/2023 etc.