Priyanka Das and Yash Harit and Narpat Singh Nirwan and Ropon Dhar V. The Union of India and The Chairman Central Board of Direct Taxes and The Director General of Income Tax (Vigilance) and The Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, NER and The Principal Director of Income Tax (Investigation) and The Principal Secretary to the Govt. of India, Prime Minister's Office and The Joint Secretary, Department of Administrative Reforms and Public Grievance and The Secretary (Revenue) to the Govt. of India, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance and The Director General of Income Tax (Investigation), Govt. of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue and The State of Assam and The Sub-Registrar, Kamrup (M), Govt. of Assam, Department of Land and Disaster Management (Registration)

WP(C)/1709/2021

AI Insights

The case involves a writ petition filed by Ms. Priyanka Das and three others against the Union of India and various officials, concerning complaints made under the Benami Transactions Informants Reward Scheme, 2018. The petitioners alleged that a person, Md. Nurudin Ahmed, was involved in benami transactions and sought rewards under the scheme. However, the court found that the complaints did not provide specific information about any single benami transaction exceeding Rs. 1 Crore, which is a mandatory condition under the scheme. Consequently, the petitioners decided not to pursue the case further, leading to the closure of the writ petition.

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 814911 (HC-MISC)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 07-04-2021
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Benami Transactions Informants Reward Scheme, 2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: GA ASSAM
• Assessee Lawyers: D K DAS
• Keywords: Benami Transactions; Complaints; Income Tax Department; Informants Reward Scheme
• Section: 147; 148; 143(3); 153A; 68

Judgement Text

"Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010039252021 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/1709/2021 PRIYANKA DAS AND 3 ORS D/O- RANJIT DAS, GANDHI BASTI, SILPUKHURI, GHY-03 2: YASH HARIT S/O- SRI ARUN HARIT JAGBANDHAN APARTMENT FLAT NO.6 BHANGAGARH GHY-05 3: NARPAT SINGH NIRWAN S/O- SRI MADAN SINGH NIRWAN FLAT- D1 LANDMARK APARTMENT NEAR SHIV MANDIR SUNDARPUR GHY-05 4: ROPON DHAR S/O- ARUN KUMAR DHAR GOSHALA BAZAR MALIGAON GHY-12 ASSA VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 10 ORS REP. BY THE UNDER SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPTT. OF REVENUE, NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI- 110019 2:THE CHAIRMAN CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES GOVT. OF INDIA Page No.# 2/5 NORTH BLOCK CENTRAL SECRETARIAT BUILDING NEW DELHI- 110001 3:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF INCOME TAX (VIGILANCE) 2ND FLOOR JAWAHARLAL NEHRU STADIUM NEW DELHI- 110003 4:THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX NER 1ST FLOOR AAYAKAR BHAWAN G.S.ROAD GHY-05 ASSAM 5:THE PRINCIPAL DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INVESTIGATION) AAYAKAR BHAWAN CHRISTIAN BASTI G.S.ROAD GHY-05 6:THE PRINCIPAL SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA PRIME MINISTERS OFFICE SOUTH BLOCK RAISENA HILLS NEW DELHI- 110011 7:THE JOINT SECRETARY DEPTT. OF ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS AND PUBLIC GRIEVANCE (AR AND PG) SARDAR PATEL BHAWAN PARLIAMENT STREET NEW DELHI- 110001 8:THE SECRETARY (REVENUE) TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA DEPTT. OF REVENUE MINISTRY FINANCE NORTH BLOCK NEW DELHI- 110001 9:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF INCOME TAX (INVESTIGATION) GOVT. OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE DEPTT. OF REVENUE AYAKAR BHAWAN ANNEXE BUILDING 3RD FLOOR P-13 CHOWRINGHEE SQUARE KOLKATA- 700069 Page No.# 3/5 10:THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE DY. COMMISSIONER KAMRUP (M) PRESIDING THE OFFICE OF THE DY. COMMISSIONER KAMRUP (M) PAN BAZAR KACHARI GHY-01 ASSAM 11:THE SUB-REGISTRAR KAMRUP (M) GOVT. OF ASSAM DEPTT. OF LAND AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT (REGISTRATION) OFFICE OF THE DY. COMMISSIONER PAN BAZAR GHY-01 (ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR D K DAS Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA ORDER Date : 07.04.2021 Heard Mr. R. K. Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Sarma, learned counsel for the respondents in the Income Tax Department. 2. The Government of India in the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue through the Central Board of Direct Taxes had introduced the Benami Transactions Informants Reward Scheme, 2018, which is dated 23.04.2018. Pursuant to the said scheme, petitioner Ms. Priyanka Das and three others ventured into making complaints before the Income Tax Department against a person Md. Nurudin Ahmed under the Benami Transactions Informants Reward Scheme, 2018. The scheme defines ‘informant’ as extracted. Page No.# 4/5 ‘3. ‘Informant’ for the purposes of this scheme: For the purpose of this scheme ‘Informant’ means a person, which will include an individual or a group of individuals, who has- (i) at a time, given specific information about one or more one or more movable or immovable benami property(ies) of which the fair market value, as defined in the Act, of movable property, an circle rate, as defined in this Scheme, of immovable property is more than Rs. One Crore in a single Annexure -A Form’. 3. A reading of the definition of informant shows that there are two condition precedents that has to be satisfied in order to be an Informant under the scheme. The first condition precedent is that the individual or a group of individuals, who desires to be the informant should give specific information about one or more movable or immovable benami property(ies) at a time undertaken by the person against whom the complaint had been lodged and whose fair market value would be more than Rs. 1 Crore in a single Annexure -A Form. 4. We required the learned counsel for the petitioner to take the Court through any such Annexure-A Form complaint that had been lodged which would provide the specific information about the existence of any such benami transaction and that the value of such transaction is more than Rs. 1 Crore. The petitioner takes the Court to a complaint which is stated to be included in page 37 of the writ petition. A reading of the said complaint shows that is with regard to a property whose value is Rs. 2 Lakhs. The learned counsel thereafter takes the Court to the page 50 of the writ petition, which is stated to be a complaint, but again at page 50, the person Md. Nurudin Ahmed is only a witness to some transaction but it does not indicate that a benami transaction was done by him. Then reference was made to page 63 of the writ petition, but which says that Md. Nurudin Ahmed had been receiving huge cash from the purchaser and seller of land through registered sale deeds and Md. Nuruddin Ahmed had received an amount of Rs. 8 Crores by way of selling and purchasing lands and flats from approximately 100 numbers of people by executing a number of registered sale deeds, which again goes to show that there is no single transaction to Page No.# 5/5 satisfy the condition precedent in the definition of informant. 5. Further reference is made to page 40 of the writ petition, which again shows that there exists a sale deed dated 21.10.1990 between the Asian Constructions and Developers Limited represented by its Deputy Manager, Mr. Rosanglien Puruolte in favour of Md. Nuruddin Ahmed for a total consideration of Rs. 4.18 Crore. But there is no indication that the said deed was a benami transaction done by Md. Nurudin Ahmed on behalf of any other persons. The definition of informant required specific information to be provided but the information contained in the document at page 40 cannot be said to be providing specific information as regards a benami transaction. 6. In such circumstance, learned counsel for the petitioner desires not to further press with this writ petition. This writ petition stands accordingly closed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant "