SMT. SITA DEVI W/O SHRI DHARMENDRA HARIJAN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, INCOME TAX (BENAMI TRANSACTION)

CW/1844/2020HC RajasthanRJHC02005116202014 October 2025Author: AVNEESH JHINGAN,PRAVEER BHATNAGAR2 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the writ petition is not maintainable as a statutory remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Act, 1988. The Court noted that the petitioner had previously been relegated to the appellate remedy in a similar challenge. While disposing of the writ petition, the Court granted the petitioner liberty to approach the Appellate Authority. Considering the pendency of the writ petition since 2020 and the existing interim protection, the Court directed that if the petitioner files an appeal within four weeks from the date of the order, the appellate authority shall consider it on merits. The interim protection granted earlier was extended until the filing of the appeal and for one week thereafter.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Smt. Sita Devi, filed a writ petition challenging the attachment of her property under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Act, 1988. The respondents, including the Deputy Commissioner, Income Tax (Benami Transaction) and the Adjudicating Authority, raised a preliminary objection regarding the availability of a statutory remedy of appeal. They relied on a previous order of the same court in a similar writ petition filed by the petitioner, where she was directed to pursue the appellate remedy. The petitioner acknowledged the objection and expressed her intention to avail the appeal remedy, requesting condonation of delay and extension of interim protection previously granted.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable when an alternative statutory remedy of appeal is available under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Act, 1988? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner, while initially filing the writ petition, implicitly sought to bypass the appellate route. Upon objection, the petitioner conceded the availability of the statutory appeal and sought condonation of delay and extension of interim protection. Revenue's Contention: The respondents argued that the writ petition is not maintainable due to the existence of a statutory appeal remedy, citing a previous order of the court in a similar matter involving the petitioner. They contended that the petitioner should be relegated to the appellate authority.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Act, 1988

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

[2025:RJ-JP:41827-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1844/2020 Smt. Sita Devi W/o Shri Dharmendra Harijan, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Village-Sanvarad, Tehsil-Ladnu, District-Nagaur, Rajasthan ----Petitioner Versus 1. Deputy Commissioner, Income Tax (Benami Transaction), And Initiating Officer Under The Prevention Of Benami Transaction Act 2016, Room No. 2500, Statue Circle, Ncrb, Income Tax Office, Jaipur 2. Union Of India, Through Its Secretary, Income Tax Department, Government Of India, New Delhi 3. Adjudicating Authority, Under The Prohibition Of Benami Property Transaction Act-1988, Room No.26, 4Th Floor, Jeevan Deep Building, Parliament Street, New Delhi- 110001 4. Smt. Raj Kanwar W/o Late Shri Anandpal Singh, R/o Dayanand Colony, Ladnu, District-Nagaur ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Samarth Kumar Jain with Mr. Amit Yadav for Mr. Ajay Kumar Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr. Siddharth Bapna with Mr. Sarvesh Jain, Ms. Tanushka Saxena, Ms. Chinki Choudhary HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

Order 14/10/2025 AVNEESH JHINGAN, J:-

This writ petition is filed challenging the attachment of property by respondents No.1 and 3 in the proceedings under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Act, 1988. [2025:RJ-JP:41827-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-1844/2020]

Learned counsel for the respondent at the outset raises a preliminary objection that the petitioner has a statutory remedy of appeal. The order dated 14.02.2023 passed by this Court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1844/2020 of the petitioner herself is relied upon, wherein in a challenge to attachment of property, the petitioner was relegated to the remedy of appeal.

Learned counsel for the petitioner in view of the objections raised by the counsel for the respondent, submits that petitioner shall avail the remedy of appeal, however, the delay in filing the appeal be condoned.

It is further prayed that the interim protection granted vide order dated 15.09.2021 be extended.

The petitioner has statutory remedy of appeal. The petition is disposed of with liberty to petitioner to approach the Appellate Authority. The writ petition is pending since 2020 and there is an interim protection granted vide order dated 15.09.2021 which is operational till date.

Taking into account that petition is pending for almost five years. In the eventuality of the petitioner filing an appeal within four weeks from today, the appellate authority shall consider the same on merits in accordance with law. The interim protection granted vide order dated 15.09.2021 shall continue till the filing of the appeal and week thereafter. (PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J (AVNEESH JHINGAN),J Chandan/16

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →