9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Interpretation of section 281A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 regarding the maintainability of a suit for property held benami without fulfilling certain conditions. Analysis: The High Court of Calcutta heard an appeal against an order setting aside the rejection of a plaint in a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession. The suit involved property held benami, and the defendant argued that the suit was barred by section 281A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as the plaintiff did not file a certified copy of the required notice to the Income-tax Officer. The lower court dismissed the suit based on non-compliance with section 281A. The High Court analyzed the provisions of section 281A, which set conditions for the institution of a suit related to benami property. The plaintiff had claimed to have issued a notice to the Income-tax Officer as required by section 281A. The Court held that the lower court erred in dismissing the suit at a preliminary stage solely based on non-compliance with section 281A, especially when the plaintiff had stated issuing the notice in the plaint. The Court emphasized that the jurisdiction to dismiss the suit arises only if it is later found that the notice was not given. The defendant contended that subsection (2) of section 281A should be treated as a proviso to subsection (1) and that the suit should be barred if a certified copy of the notice is not filed before the institution of the suit. However, the Court disagreed, stating that subsection (2) provides a mode of proof for the conditions under subsection (1) and does not create a bar to the institution of the suit. The Court emphasized that the plaintiff can provide proof of notice at the final hearing, and there is no requirement to procure a certified copy before filing the suit. The Court affirmed the judgment of the lower appellate court, dismissing the appeal and upholding the maintainability of the suit. No other points were raised in the appeal, and the court directed the records to be sent back to the lower court promptly. The request for a stay of operation of the order was disallowed, and both judges concurred with the decision.
|
