Case Law Details
Kailash Assudani Vs CIT (Madhya Pradesh High court)
A plain reading of Sub-section (3) of Section 26 of Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Act, 1988 makes it clear that the adjudicating authority is obliged to examine the stand of alleged Benamindar in reply to the show cause notice. He is further obliged to make further inquiry or take into account further report or evidence which he deems fit for deciding the question. He can take into account all relevant documents. After providing due opportunity of hearing to alleged Benamindar, he may pass the order to declare the property as Benami Property and confirm the attachment order or he may hold that the property cannot be treated as Benami Property . In that case, he may revoke the attachment order.
Pertinently, as per Sub-section (6) of Section 26, the adjudicating authority may at any stage of proceeding, either on the application of any party or suo-moto strike out the name of any property improperly joined or add the name of any person whose presence before the adjudicating authority may be necessary to enable him to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the reference.
FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER / JUDGEMENT
This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 29.06.2017 (Annexure-P/1), whereby the Initiating Officer/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Benami Prohibition), Bhopal prohibited and restrained the M/s. Kailesh Associates from transferring or changing the instant property in any manner till passing of necessary order by adjudicating authority under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Act, 1988 (hereinafter called as “the PBPT Act”).
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
