Delhi High Court - Orders
Ajanta Merchants Private Limited vs Initiating Officer Acit Benami ... on 25 June, 2020
Author: Navin Chawla
Bench: Navin Chawla
$~3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 3734/2020
AJANTA MERCHANTS PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Dayan Krishnan, Sr. Adv. with
Mr.Saurabh Seth, Ms.Sumeera Seth, Mr.Sukrit
Seth, Mr.Sanjivi Sheshadri, Mr.Sumer Dev Seth,
Advs.
versus
INITIATING OFFICER ACIT BENAMI PROHIBITION UNIT 2
DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Raghvendra K.Singh, Sr. SC, Income
Tax Deptt. with Mr.Manmeet Singh Arora, SPP
for R-1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
ORDER
% 25.06.2020 This hearing has been held by video conferencing. CMs 13373-74/2020(Exemption from filing notarized affidavit and affixing of court fee)
1. These applications have been filed seeking exemption from filing duly notarised affidavits and affixing requisite court fee. Binding the deponent of the affidavit to the contents of the application, the exemption is granted.
2. Court fee shall be deposited online with the concerned authority within one week and physical stamp be filed within 72 hours from the date of resumption of regular functioning of the Court, as mandated in terms of Office Order dated April 04, 2020 issued by this Court.
3. Applications are disposed of.
CM 13372/2020(exemption) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
WP(C) 3734/2020 & CM 13371/2020 Issue notice. Notice is accepted by Mr.Raghvendra Singh, Advocate on behalf of the respondent no.1. Let notice of this petition be issued to the respondent nos. 2 and 3, to be served through electronic mode, returnable on 3rd July, 2020.
The learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that by the Impugned Order dated 19.06.2020, the respondent no. 2 has stated that the reference may be reserved for orders on 02.07.2020. The Impugned Order does not state if any opportunity of hearing shall be granted to the petitioner before reserving the order. Relying upon the e-mail dated 15.06.2020, he submits that it is almost apparent that the respondent no.2 intends not to give any oral hearing to the petitioner and shall reserve the order without the same. He places reliance on Section 11 and Section 26(3)(a) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 to submit that the respondent no.2 has to comply with the principles of natural justice, including grant of an opportunity of oral hearing.
Keeping in view the submissions made, it is directed that the respondent no.2 shall not reserve the reference for orders without granting opportunity of oral hearing through video conferencing to the petitioner till the next date of hearing.
I may also note that the learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 submits that the Impugned Order incorrectly records that the respondent no.1 has not filed a rejoinder to the reply of the petitioner herein. He submits that the rejoinder was filed on 03.06.2020. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that he has not received a copy thereof. The learned counsel for the respondent no.1 shall supply a copy of the same to the learned counsel for the petitioner within two days.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J JUNE 25, 2020 RN