Case Law Details
P. Eswaramoorthy Vs DCIT (Supreme Court of India)
In a recent judgment by the Supreme Court of India, the case of P. Eswaramoorthy vs. DCIT was addressed. The central issue revolved around whether the purchase of shares in a company under liquidation could be considered as benami property ownership. This article provides an in-depth analysis of the case and its implications.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Background: The case involved P. Eswaramoorthy, the appellant, who had purchased shares in a company undergoing liquidation. The question at hand was whether this acquisition of shares implied ownership of benami property.
2. Delay Condoned: Before delving into the core issue, the Supreme Court first condoned the delay in the case. With this procedural hurdle cleared, the court proceeded to address the substantive matter.
3. Appellant’s Argument: The learned Senior Advocate representing the appellant argued that the company in liquidation was not the owner of any benami property. It was contended that merely purchasing shares in a company under liquidation did not bestow ownership of benami property upon the company itself.
4. Tagging with Another Case: The Supreme Court decided to issue a notice and tagged this case with another, titled “C. Ramasubramaniam v. the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Benami Prohibition) & Ors.” This move indicated a potential similarity or overlap in the legal issues addressed in these cases.
5. Continuation of Appellate Proceedings: Importantly, the Supreme Court clarified that it had not stayed the appellate proceedings in the matter. The regular legal processes would proceed as per established legal norms and procedures.
Conclusion: The Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of P. Eswaramoorthy vs. DCIT offers clarity on the issue of whether the purchase of shares in a company under liquidation can be deemed as benami property ownership. The court’s decision to condone the delay and tag the case with another similar matter hints at a broader examination of benami property issues. The continuation of the appellate proceedings ensures that justice is served in accordance with the law. This case serves as a precedent for future cases dealing with the intricacies of property ownership in complex corporate situations.
FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT/ORDER
Delay condoned.
Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that in this case, the company which is under liquidation is not the owner of any benami property. Purchase of the shares in a company under liquidation does not make the company itself the owner of the benami property.
Issue notice and tag with Civil Appeal no. 7140/2022 titled “C. Ramasubramaniam v. the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Benami Prohibition) & Ors.”.
Notice will be served by all modes, including dasti.
We clarify that we have not stayed the appellate proceedings, which will continue in accordance with law.
