RAGHUVINDER SINGH S/O SHRI R.K. SINGH vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
CW/18702/2018HC RajasthanRJHC02080896201827 August 2018Bench: SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court observed that the matter was already pending before the adjudicating authority, where the alleged benamidar had submitted objections and the petitioner, as the beneficiary, could also raise his objections. The Court found it inappropriate to examine the legality and veracity of the notice of attachment at that stage, given the ongoing proceedings before the adjudicating authority. The Court directed that all objections raised by the petitioner before the High Court could be taken up before the adjudicating authority. It was expected that the adjudicating authority would decide all objections in a reasoned manner, providing reasonable time for the petitioner to submit written objections and affording a fair opportunity to all parties to present their case. The writ petition was disposed of with these observations.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Raghuvinder Singh, filed three writ petitions before the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, challenging a notice of attachment dated December 22, 2017, and an order passed by the approving authority on the same date. These actions were taken under the Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act, 1988. The petitioner raised grounds concerning the non-compliance with the principles of natural justice and specific provisions of the Act, particularly Section 24 regarding the service of notice and the application of mind by the approving authority. The Revenue contended that the matter was pending before the adjudicating authority, where the alleged benamidar, Vimlesh, had already submitted objections, and the petitioner, as the beneficiary, could also raise objections there. The adjudicating authority was scheduled to hear the matter shortly.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice of attachment dated December 22, 2017, and the order of the approving authority of the same date were issued in compliance with the principles of natural justice and the provisions of the Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act, 1988, specifically Section 24 regarding service of notice and application of mind? Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that there was a non-compliance with the principles of natural justice and specific provisions of the Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act, 1988, including Section 24 concerning the service of notice and the application of mind by the approving authority. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue submitted that the matter was pending before the adjudicating authority, where the benamidar had filed objections, and the petitioner, as the beneficiary, could also raise his objections before the adjudicating authority. The Revenue indicated that the adjudicating authority was scheduled to hear the matter soon.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 24

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR 1. S.B. Civil Writs No. 18701/2018 Raghuvinder Singh S/o Shri R.k. Singh, Aged About 51 Years, R/o V-2/4, Jaypee Green Land 1, Golf Course, Greater Noida, U.p. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Benami Transaction) And Initiating Officer Under The Prevention Of Benami Transaction Act 2016, Room No. 250, Status Circle, Ncrb, Income Tax Office, Jaipur 2. Additional Commissioner (Benami Prohibition Rajasthan And Approving Authority, Prohibition Of Benami Transaction Act, 1988. 3. Union Of India Through Its Secretary, Income Tax Department, Government Of India, New Delhi. ----Respondents Connected With 2. S.B. Civil Writs No. 18702/2018 Raghuvinder Singh S/o Shri R.k. Singh, Aged About 51 Years, R/o V-2/4, Jaypee Green Land 1, Golf Course, Greater Noida, U.p. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Benami Transaction) And Initiating Officer Under The Prevention Of Benami Transaction Act 2016, Room No. 250, Status Circle, Ncrb, Income Tax Office, Jaipur 2. Additional Commissioner (Benami Prohibition Rajasthan And Approving Authority, Prohibition Of Benami Transaction Act, 1988. 3. Union Of India Through Its Secretary, Income Tax Department, Government Of India, New Delhi. ----Respondents 3. S.B. Civil Writs No. 18703/2018 (Uploaded on 16/10/2023 at 04:38:22 PM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 10:20:30 AM) (2 of 3) [CW-18701/2018] Raghuvinder Singh S/o Shri R.k. Singh, Aged About 51 Years, R/o V-2/4, Jaypee Green Land 1, Golf Course, Greater Noida, U.p. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Benami Transaction) And Initiating Officer Under The Prevention Of Benami Transaction Act 2016, Room No. 250, Status Circle, Ncrb, Income Tax Office, Jaipur. 2. Additional Commissioner (Benami Prohibition Rajasthan And Approving Authority, Prohibition Of Benami Transaction Act, 1988. 3. Union Of India Through Its Secretary, Income Tax Department, Government Of India, New Delhi. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manjeet Singh Ahluwalia, Adv. with Mr. Yash Sharma, Adv. & Mr. Laxmi Kant, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. RB Mathur, Adv. with Mr. Nikhil Simlote, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA Judgment / Order 27/08/2018 1. Petitioner has preferred these writ petitions assailing the notice of attachment dated 22/12/2017 as well as the order passed by the approving authority of the even date. 2. Grounds have been raised regarding non-compliance of principles of natural justice as well as non-compliance of the provisions contained under the Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act, 1988, specially Section 24 with regard to service of notice and also with regard to application of mind relating to the order of approval. (Uploaded on 16/10/2023 at 04:38:22 PM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 10:20:30 AM) (3 of 3) [CW-18701/2018] 3. Mr. RB Mathur appears for the respondent-caveator (Revenue) and submits that the matter is pending before the adjudicating authority where the Benamidar namely; Vimlesh has already submitted her objections and the petitioner, who is a beneficiary, if aggrieved, can also raise objections before the adjudicating authority. It is stated that the matter is to be taken up by the adjudicating authority day after tomorrow. 4. Having noted the aforesaid, this Court finds that it would not be appropriate for this Court at this stage to examine the veracity and legality of the notice of attachment issued way back as on 22/12/2017 as of now as the matter is already pending before the adjudicating authority. However, all the objections, which the petitioner has raised before this Court, can be taken up by him before the adjudicating authority and it would be for the adjudicating authority to decide and examine all the objections and pass a reasoned order. It is expected from the adjudicating authority to give reasonable time to the petitioner to put up his objections in writing and examine the entire issue thread-bear after giving fair opportunity to all the parties. 5. Thus, at this stage, the writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations. (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J Raghu/241-243 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 16/10/2023 at 04:38:22 PM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 10:20:30 AM)

More judgments on Section 24

All 701 judgments and leading authorities on Section 24 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →