Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Dheeru Gond vs Union Of India on 9 January, 2018

            THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                        MP-531-2017




                                                          sh
                        (DHEERU GOND Vs UNION OF INDIA)




                                                      e
  Jabalpur, Dated : 09-01-2018




                                                   ad
  Shri A.K.Chakraverti, learned counsel for the petitioner.

                                             Pr
  Shri Sanjay Lal, learned counsel for the respondent No.1.

Heard on admission.

a hy This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 29.9.2017 ad (Annexure P-1) passed under Section 24(3) of the Prohibition of M Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 (for short “Act, 1988”) by the Initiating Officer, Assistant Commissioner of of Income Tax (Benami Prohibition) Bhopal.

rt Shri Sanjay Lal, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has ou submitted that in identical matter i.e. WP No.10280/2017 filed by one Kailash Assudani has already been dismissed by the Single C Judge of this Court and in appeal also the order of the learned h Single Judge has been confirmed by the Division Bench of this ig Court, hence it is prayed that this petition be also dismissed. H Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has further submitted that the petitioner is at liberty to file all the objections before the adjudicating authority under Section 26 of the Act, 1988, as the time limit is to file objection before the Initiating Officer has already elapsed, which was 90 days from the date of notice. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has not filed any reply to the impugned show cause notice and he apprehends that he shall not be provided due opportunity to file his reply.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, it is apparent that the learned Single Judge of this Court in WP No.10280/2017 filed by one Kailash Assudani challenging the sh show cause notice of similar nature has dismissed the petition holding that the provision of Section 26 of the Act, 1988 is e ad complete code in itself providing ample opportunities to the assessee concerned, and apart from that there is remedy of appeal Pr available to the petitioner. The order passed by the learned Single a Judge of this Court in WP No.10280/2017 has been confirmed by hy the Division Bench of this Court in WA No.704/2017 with the ad following observations:-

“ We do not find any merit in the present M appeal. It is the Adjudicating Authority who is to decide the question of Benami nature of the property.

of The proceedings under Section 24 of the Act contemplates the issuance of show cause notice as to why the property specified in the notice should not be rt treated as Benami property. However, the substantive ou order of treating the property as Benami is required to be passed by Adjudicating Authority under Section 26 C of the Act only. Therefore, the appellant is at liberty to take all such plea of law and facts as may be available h to the appellant before the Adjudicating Authority. The ig Adjudicating Authority shall decide the Benami nature of the property in accordance with law.” H In view of the aforesaid, this petition is bound to follow the same fate as that of writ petition No.10280/2017. However, looking to the fact that the petitioner has not filed his reply till date, liberty is granted to the petitioner to file his reply before the adjudicating authority and take all such plea of law and facts as may be available to the petitioner before the adjudicating authority, who shall decide the same in accordance with law. Accordingly, the petition is hereby dismissed with the aforesaid liberty. No cost.

(SUBODH ABHYANKAR) JUDGE e sh Digitally signed by MANZOOR ad AHMED Date: 2018.01.10 20:42:58 -08'00' Ansari Pr a hy ad M of rt ou C h ig H