SHASHI KANT CHAURASIA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ORS.

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/10604/2023HC DelhiDLHC01031075202310 April 2024Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD7 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, noting that the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners fairly accepted the suggestion to approach the Tribunal, disposed of the writ petitions. The petitioners were permitted to approach the Appellate Tribunal within six weeks. The interim direction for no coercive action against the petitioners was extended until the Appellate Tribunal adjudicates on their stay application. The Tribunal was requested to consider the applicability of the Benami Act while adjudicating the stay applications, without being influenced by the disposal of the writ petitions. The Court made it clear that it had not made any observations on the merits of the case. The Tribunal is to consider the case on its own merits.

What were the facts?

The petitioners, including Shashi Kant Chaurasia and others, filed writ petitions before the Delhi High Court challenging proceedings initiated against them under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988. They also challenged an order dated June 28, 2023, passed by the Adjudicating Authority, which confirmed a Provisional Attachment Order under Section 24(4) of the said Act. The respondents, including the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and others, raised a preliminary objection regarding the availability of an alternate remedy under Section 46 of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988. The High Court suggested that the petitioners approach the Appellate Tribunal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the provisions of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, are attracted to the facts of the present case? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The principal contention of the petitioners is that the provisions of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, are not applicable to their case. Revenue's Contention: The principal objection taken by the respondents is that there is an alternate statutory remedy available to the petitioners under Section 46 of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, and therefore, the writ petitions should not be entertained by the High Court.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 24(4),Section 46

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Heard together (2 matters)

W.P.(C) 10604/2023
W.P.(C) 10605/2023

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

W.P.(C) 10604/2023 etc.

Page 1 of 7

$~70 to 77 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 10604/2023 & CM APPL. 41160/2023

SHASHI KANT CHAURASIA

..... Petitioner Through: Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rohit Jain, Mr. Aniket D. Agarwal, Mr. Saksham Singhal, Advocates.

versus

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Sr. Standing Counsel and Mr. Sanjeev Menon, Jr. Standing Counsel.

Mr. Purushottam Sharma Tripathi, Mr. Abhishek Tripathi, Advocates for R-4.

Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Yash Raj Samant, Mr. Ravi Chandra and Mr. Amit, Advocate for R-5 to 13.

(71) + W.P.(C) 10605/2023 & CM APPL. 41162/2023

MAYANK CHAURASIA versus

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Sr. Standing Counsel and Mr. Sanjeev Menon, Jr. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/07/2025 at 10:22:50

W.P.(C) 10604/2023 etc.

Page 2 of 7

Standing Counsel.

Mr. Purushottam Sharma Tripathi, Mr. Abhishek Tripathi, Advocates for R-4.

Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Yash Raj Samant, Mr. Ravi Chandra and Mr. Amit, Advocate for R-5 to 13. (72) + W.P.(C) 10808/2023 & CM APPL. 41846/2023

DIPTI CHAURASIA

..... Petitioner Through: Mr. S. Ganesh, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rohit Jain, Mr. Aniket D. Agarwal, Mr. Saksham Singhal, Advocates.

versus

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Sr. Standing Counsel and Mr. Sanjeev Menon, Jr. Standing Counsel.

Mr. Purushottam Sharma Tripathi, Mr. Abhishek Tripathi, Advocates for R-4.

Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Yash Raj Samant, Mr. Ravi Chandra and Mr. Amit, Advocate for R-5 to 13. (73) + W.P.(C) 10811/2023 & CM APPL. 41852/2023

RAJIV CHAURASIA versus

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/07/2025 at 10:22:50

W.P.(C) 10604/2023 etc.

Page 3 of 7

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Sr. Standing Counsel and Mr. Sanjeev Menon, Jr. Standing Counsel.

Mr. Purushottam Sharma Tripathi, Mr. Abhishek Tripathi, Advocates for R-4.

Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Yash Raj Samant, Mr. Ravi Chandra and Mr. Amit, Advocate for R-5 to 13. (74) + W.P.(C) 10815/2023 & CM APPL. 41926/2023

VIJAY ANAND CHAURASIA

. versus

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Sr. Standing Counsel and Mr. Sanjeev Menon, Jr. Standing Counsel.

Mr. Purushottam Sharma Tripathi, Mr. Abhishek Tripathi, Advocates for R-4.

Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Yash Raj Samant, Mr. Ravi Chandra and Mr. Amit, Advocate for R-5 to 13. (75) + W.P.(C) 10821/2023 & CM APPL. 41939/2023

ANAND KUMAR CHAURASIA

..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Rohit Jain, Mr. Aniket D. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/07/2025 at 10:22:50

W.P.(C) 10604/2023 etc.

Page 4 of 7

Agarwal, Mr. Saksham Singhal, Advocates.

versus

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Sr. Standing Counsel and Mr. Sanjeev Menon, Jr. Standing Counsel.

Mr. Purushottam Sharma Tripathi, Mr. Abhishek Tripathi, Advocates for R-4.

Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Yash Raj Samant, Mr. Ravi Chandra and Mr. Amit, Advocate for R-5 to 13. (76) + W.P.(C) 10822/2023 & CM APPL. 41942/2023

VIBHA ARYA CHAURASIA versus

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Sr. Standing Counsel and Mr. Sanjeev Menon, Jr. Standing Counsel.

Mr. Purushottam Sharma Tripathi, Mr. Abhishek Tripathi, Advocates for R-4.

Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Yash Raj Samant, Mr. Ravi Chandra and Mr. Amit, Advocate for R-5 to 13.

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/07/2025 at 10:22:50

W.P.(C) 10604/2023 etc.

Page 5 of 7

(77) + W.P.(C) 10826/2023 & CM APPL. 41949/2023

NAVNEET CHAURASIA versus

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Sr. Standing Counsel and Mr. Sanjeev Menon, Jr. Standing Counsel.

Mr. Purushottam Sharma Tripathi, Mr. Abhishek Tripathi, Advocates for R-4.

Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Yash Raj Samant, Mr. Ravi Chandra and Mr. Amit, Advocate for R-5 to 13.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD

O R D E R %

10.04.2024 1. The Petitioners have approached this Court challenging the proceedings initiated against them under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 and the Order dated 28.06.2023 passed by the Adjudicating Authority confirming an order of Provisional Attachment Order passed under Section 24(4) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988. 2. The principal contention of the Petitioners is that the provisions of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act are not attracted in the facts of the present case. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/07/2025 at 10:22:50

W.P.(C) 10604/2023 etc.

Page 6 of 7

3.

Notice was issued by this Court in the present writ petitions and this Court had directed that no coercive action to be taken against the Petitioners. 4. Pleadings are complete. The principal objection taken by the Respondent in the counter affidavit is that there is an alternate remedy under Section 46 of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act and this Court ought not to entertain the writ petition in the presence of an alternate remedy. 5. When this Court suggested that the Petitioners should approach the Tribunal, the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners accepted the suggestion given by the Court. 6. In view of the fact that the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners fairly accepted the suggestion of the Court, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petitions permitting the Petitioners to approach the Tribunal within a period of six weeks from today. 7. The direction to the Respondents not to take coercive action against the Petitioners shall continue till the Appellate Tribunal adjudicates on the stay application filed by the Petitioners along with the appeal filed by the Petitioners in the Tribunal. 8. Needless to state that since the principal contention raised in the writ petition is the applicability of the Benami Act in the facts of present cases, the Tribunal while adjudicating the applications for stay will take into consideration as to whether the Benami Act is applicable at all in the facts and circumstances of the cases. 9. It is always open for the Petitioners to approach this Court in case the application of stay is decided adverse to the interest of the Petitioners. It is always open for the Tribunal at that juncture to consider as to whether the This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/07/2025 at 10:22:50

W.P.(C) 10604/2023 etc.

Page 7 of 7

direction of no coercive action as directed by the Court should continue or not. 10. It is made clear that this Court has not made any observation on the merits of the case. The Tribunal is requested to consider the case on its own merits uninfluenced by the fact that the writ petitions have been disposed of as withdrawn. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.

SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J APRIL 10, 2024 hsk This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/07/2025 at 10:22:50

More judgments on Section 46

All 40 judgments and leading authorities on Section 46 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →