Smt. Sumitra Devi V. Union Of India and Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Benami Prohibition) And Initiating Officer and Addl. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Benami Prohibition) And Approving Authority and Adjudicating Authority

CW/12095/2019

AI Insights

The case involves Smt. Sumitra Devi, the petitioner, contesting against the Union of India and other respondents under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988. The core issue revolved around the applicability of a Supreme Court decision to transactions that occurred prior to the Supreme Court's judgment. The petitioner argued that her transactions were before the Supreme Court's decision, which should exempt them from the Act's prohibitions as clarified in the case of Union of India and Anr. Vs. M/s. Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. The respondents acknowledged the Supreme Court's decision but noted a pending review petition which could affect the finality of the judgment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 800699 (HC-RAJASTHAN)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 16-07-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Union of India and Anr. Vs. M/s. Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd., AIR 2022 SC 4558
• Laws Referred To: Prohibition Of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: SARVESH JAIN; MEHYUL MEHTA; SIDDHARTH BAPNA
• Assessee Lawyers: TANUJ AGRAWAL
• Keywords: Benami property transactions; Property release; Supreme Court judgment

Judgement Text

"[2024:RJ-JP:29842-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12095/2019 Smt. Sumitra Devi, W/o Shri Bhagirath Mal Raigar, Harijan Mohalla, Village Luhakna Kalan, Tehsil Virat Nagar, District Jaipur- 303003 ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through Its Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi 2. Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Benami Prohibition) And Initiating Officer, Under The Prohibition Of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, Room No. 250, New Central Revenue Building, Statute Circle, Jaipur- 302005 (Rajasthan) 3. Addl. Commissioner Of Income- Tax (Benami Prohibition) And Approving Authority, Under The Prohibition Of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, Room No. 239, New Central Revenue Building, Statute Circle, Jaipur- 302005 (Rajasthan) 4. Adjudicating Authority, Under The Prohibition Of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, Room No. 26, 4Th Floor, Jeevan Deep Building, Parliament Street, New Delhi- 110001 ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tanuj Agrawal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sarvesh Jain with Mr. Mehyul Mehta for Mr. Siddharth Bapna HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR Order 16/07/2024 1. Heard. [2024:RJ-JP:29842-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-12095/2019] 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issued raised in this petition has been decided by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Anr. Vs. M/s. Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd., AIR 2022 SC 4558. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that all the transactions which are subject matter of this petition were prior to the date of the delivery of the judgment of the Supreme Court. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that applicability of the decision would depend upon the fact that where the transactions were entered into prior to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. M/s. Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. (supra). According to him, the Supreme Court judgment is applicable only in those cases where the transactions have been arrived at prior to the date of delivery of the judgment. He would also submit that though the Hon’ble Supreme Court has decided the issue in the aforesaid case, review petition has been filed which is pending consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents however, could not dispute that order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. M/s. Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. (supra) remains operative and has not been decided so far. 6. In view of the above, this petition also deserves to be disposed of and accordingly, the property/properties in dispute in the present case deserves to be released subject to factual verification as to the date of transaction with regard to the property. To be more specific, this order will come to the benefit [2024:RJ-JP:29842-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-12095/2019] of the petitioner and consequent reliefs only in those cases where the transactions were held prior to the date of the delivery of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. M/s. Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. (supra) i.e. 01.11.2016 subject to verification carried out prior to 01.11.2016. 7. It is, however, made clear that the release would be subject to the final order that may ultimately be passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the pending review petition. 8. The instant writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. (ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),CJ N.Gandhi-Rahul/300 "