HAZELNUT CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. V. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

CW/11744/2019

AI Insights

The writ petitions filed by Hazelnut Construction Pvt. Ltd. and Smt. Sanju Devi challenged the proceedings initiated under Section 24 of the Benami Property Transaction Act, 1988. The core issue was the retrospective applicability of the Benami Amendment Act 2016. The petitioners argued against the retrospective application of the amendments, which was a common grievance in both cases. The court referenced a similar case, Niharika Jain & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors., where it was held that the amendments are prospective. The court decided to dispose of the current petitions based on this precedent, stating that any future orders from the Division Bench in the appeal by the Revenue would also govern these cases.

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 769395 (HC-RAJASTHAN)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 23-09-2019
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Niharika Jain & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (SB Civil Writ Petition No.2915/2019)
• Laws Referred To: Benami Property Transaction Act, 1988, Benami Amendment Act 2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: R B MATHUR; TANVI SAHAI
• Assessee Lawyers: BHARAT VYAS; NEHA GYANLANI; RAM DHAN
• Keywords: Benami property; Prospective applicability; Retrospective Applicability
• Section: 24

Judgement Text

"HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11744/2019 Hazelnut Construction Pvt. Ltd., 514, Dalamal Towers, 211, Fpj Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai, Maharashtra-400021 Through Authorized Representative Sh. Sanjay Harkishore Parekh S/o Sh. Harkishore Kevelchand Parekh, Aged About 58 Years, Authorized Representative C/o Hazelnut Construction Pvt. Ltd., 514, Dalamal Towers, 211, Fpj Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai, Maharashtra-400021. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Benami Transaction) And Initiating Officer Under The Prohibition Of Benami Property Transaction Act 1988, Room No. 250, Statue Circle, Ncrb, Income Tax Office, Jaipur. 2. Union Of India, Through Its Secretary, Income Tax Department, Government Of India, New Delhi. ----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13166/2019 Smt. Sanju Devi W/o Late Sh. Naruram Meena, Ward No. 6, Famnawali Dhani, Deepawas, Via Ganeshwar, Tehsil Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar, Rajasthan ----Petitioner Versus Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Benami Transaction) And Initiating Officer Under The Prohibition Of Benami Property Transaction Act 1988, Room No. 250, Statue Circle, Ncrb, Income Tax Office, Jaipur ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Bharat Vyas with Ms.Neha Gyanlani & Mr.Ramdhan For Respondent(s) : Mr.RB Mathur with Ms.Tanvi Sahai HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR Order (2 of 3) [CW-11744/2019] 23/09/2019 In the both writ petitions, the petitioners have a common grievance, as they have challenged the proceedings initiated under Section 24 of the Benami Property Transaction Act, 1988 (for short “the Act of 1988”). Learned counsel for both the parties submit that the similar controversy has been examined by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 12th July, 2019 in the case of Niharika Jain & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (SB Civil Writ Petition No.2915/2019) along with other connected writ petitions. The Coordinate Bench of this Court in para No.93, 94 & 95 of the judgment in the case of Niharika Jain & Ors. (supra) has held as under : “93. For the reason aforesaid and in the backdrop of the settled legal proposition so also in view of singular factual matrix of the matters herein; this Court has no hesitation to hold that the Benami Amendment Act 2016, amending the Principal Benami Act 1988, enacted w.e.f. 1st November, 2016, i.e. the date determined by the Central Government in its wisdom for its enforcement; cannot have retrospective effect. 94. It is made clear that this Court has neither examined nor commented upon merits of the writ applications but has considered only the larger question of retrospective applicability of the Benami Amendment Act, 2016 amending the original Benami Act of 1988. Thus, the authority concerned would examine each case on its own merits keeping in view the fact that amended provisions introduced and the amendments enacted and made enforceable w.e.f. 1st November, 2016; would be prospective and not retrospective. (3 of 3) [CW-11744/2019] 95. The batch of the writ applications stands disposed off, as indicated above.” Learned counsel for the Revenue Mr.RB Mathur submits that the respondents have already preferred an appeal before the Division Bench and as such, whatever outcome of the appeal, the same will also govern the present cases as well. This Court, considering the nature of the controversy which has already been decided, deems it proper to dispose the present writ petitions as per the terms, which have been given in the case of Niharika Jain & Ors. (supra). The judgment in the case of Niharika Jain & Ors. (supra) will apply on all four corners to the present controversy. It goes without saying that if any order is passed by the Division Bench in the appeal preferred by the Revenue, the parties would be bound by the same. Ordered accordingly. A copy of this order be placed separately in the connected writ petition. (ASHOK KUMAR GAUR),J Preeti Asopa /5 & 130 "