SANATAN BUDEG vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
WPC/3420/2024HC ChhattisgarhCGHC01021484202408 July 2024Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PARTH PRATEEM SAHU3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the writ petition, in its current form, was not maintainable. The Court observed that the petitioner was neither the seller nor the purchaser of the land. The petitioner's grievance was that co-owned property was sold by some co-owners, and he had not been paid his share of the sale consideration. The Court opined that if the petitioner had a dispute regarding his share in the property or the sale consideration, he had other remedies available by filing appropriate proceedings before the appropriate forum. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed. No specific finding was made on the benami transaction aspect as the petition was dismissed on maintainability grounds.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, a co-sharer of land (Khasra No. 230 and 255), filed a writ petition before the High Court of Chhattisgarh. The petitioner alleged that other co-owners (Respondents 7-10) sold a portion of the property to a tribal person (Respondent 5) but the sale consideration was paid by a non-tribal person (Respondent 6). The petitioner claimed this constituted a benami transaction and that the sale was made without his consent, with the sellers retaining the entire sale consideration. The petitioner sought a direction for the Initiating Officer (Respondent 2) to act on his complaint under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988. The respondents argued that the petition was not maintainable due to a family property dispute and the petitioner's lack of locus standi.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner, as a co-sharer, has the locus standi to file a writ petition seeking action under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, based on allegations of a benami transaction and non-receipt of his share of sale consideration? Assessee's Contention (Petitioner): The petitioner is a co-sharer of the property, which was sold without his consent. He did not receive his share of the sale consideration, and the transaction is alleged to be a benami transaction. He seeks a direction for the authorities to act on his complaint. Revenue's Contention (Respondents 1, 2, & 4): The writ petition is not maintainable as it appears to stem from a dispute between family members regarding their shares in the joint property. The petitioner's grievance is related to property dispute rather than a benami transaction issue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 23

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 3420 of 2024 1. Sanatan Budeg Shri Lal Bihari Budeg, Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Nawagaon, P.S. Basna, Tehsil Pithora, District Mahasamund (C.G.). ------Petitioner VERSUS 1. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax (Benami Prohibition), Room No. 201, First Floor, Central Revenue Buliding, Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Initiating Officer, Pbpt Act, Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax (Benami Prohibition), Room No. 201, First Floor, Central Revenue Building, Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G.) 3. Union Of India, Through Its Secretary, Ministry Of Finance (Department Of Revenue), Government Of India, New Delhi. 4. Adjudicating Officer Under The Prohibition Of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, Room No. 26, 4th Floor, Jeevan Deep Buliding, Parliament Street, New Delhi. 5. Shoukilal Bariha S/o Shri Hutasan Bariha, Aged About 55 Years R/o Village- Padkipali, Post Paraswani, P.S. Sankara, Tehsil - Pithora, District Mahasamund (C.G.) (Alleged Benimadar) 6. Santosh Patel S/o Shri Chetan Patel, Aged About 53 Years R/o Village- Nawgaon, P.S. Basna, Tehsil-Pithora, District Mahasamund (C.G.) (Alleged Beneficial Owner) 7. Manoj S/o Late Shri Tikelal, Aged About 37 Years R/o Village Nawagaon, P.S.- Basna, Tehsil -Pithora, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) (Alleged Sellers Of Land) 8. Naveen S/o Late Shri Tikelal, Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Nawagaon, P.S.- Basna, Tehsil -Pithora, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) (Alleged Sellers Of Land) 9. Chabi S/o Late Shri Tikelal, Aged About 44 Years R/o Village Nawagaon, P.S.- Basna, Tehsil -Pithora, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) (Alleged Sellers Of Land) 10.Kiskinaar S/o Late Shri Tikelal, Aged About 71 Years R/o Village Nawagaon, P.S.- Basna, Tehsil -Pithora, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) (Alleged Sellers Of Land) 11. Collector Mahsamund, District Mahasamund (C.G.) 12.Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Pithora, District- Mahasamund (C.G.). 13.Municipal Council, Mungeli Through - Chief Municipal Officer, Mungeli (C.G.).

-------Respondents (cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Surfuraz Khan, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Rishabh Dev Singh, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Dy. Solicitor General For Respondent No.1, 2 & 4 : Mr. Naushina Ali, Advocate along with

2 Mr. Ajay Kumrani, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Chaudhari, Advocate For Respondent No. 11 & 12 : Mr. Praveen Das, Dy. A.G.

SB:Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge ORDER ON BOARD 09 /07/2024

1.

The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a Suitable Writ (S), Order (s), Direction (s), by commanding Respondent No. 2 to act on the complaint (Annexure P/1) of the petitioner, as per Section 23 of The Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Act, 1988 (As amended, the Benami Transaction [Prohibition] Amendment Act, 2016 w.e.f. 01/11/2016), within a time frame. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire records from the court below for its kind perusal. 10.3 Any other relief/reliefs which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be allowed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner along with the Respondent No. 7 to 10 were owner of the property bearing Khasra No. 230 admeasuring 0.30 hectares and Khasra no. 255 admeasuring 0.39 hectares. The Respondents No. 7 to 10 have sold the part of the said property in favour of one tribal person in the name of Shoukilal Bariha. However, the sale consideration was paid by the Respondent No. 6 who is a non-tribal person. The transfer of land of a tribal person to a non-tribal person is not permissible under the law and therefore, the transfer of land is made through Benami Transaction. Petitioner made several complaints to the different authorities, however, it has not been taken into consideration. 3. When the Court posed question as to what is the locus of the petitioner to file this writ petition, he submits that the petitioner is also co-sharer of the property and is also having the right over that property which has been sold without his consent and the entire sale consideration has been

3 kept by the seller i.e. the Respondent No. 7 to 10. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondents No. 1, 2 & 4 submits that there appears to be some dispute between the family members i.e. the petitioner and the Respondents No. 7 to 10 with regard to their share in the joint owner property and this writ petition is filed or the complaint is made only because of some property dispute between them and therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the documents enclosed along with the writ petition. 6. The petitioner is neither the seller of the land nor the purchaser. The grievance shown by the counsel for the petitioner is that the co- ownership property is sold by some of the co-owner and he was not paid the amount of his share and therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the writ petition in its form is not maintainable. Accordingly, it is dismissed. If the petitioner is having some dispute with respect to the share in the said property or the sale consideration, the petitioner is having some other remedy by way of filing appropriate proceedings before the appropriate forum. 7. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Dey

More judgments on Section 23

All 564 judgments and leading authorities on Section 23 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →