2018 (7) TMI 2287 - HC - Benami Property

Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act and Income Tax Act - proceedings under both the Acts - HELD THAT - All questions of fact and law can be raised before an adjudicating authority. Needless to state, the adjudicating authority cannot issue a writ of declaration nor can he declare any of the provision as ultra vires or inapplicable or mutually exclusive. Therefore, the Revenue need not have any apprehension in this regard. Petitioner would submit that the proceedings under the Income Tax Act were initiated after the proceedings under the Benami Prohibition Act and therefore, the writ petition was filed. Hence, the petitioner may be granted leave to file an additional written submission before the 7th respondent. This prayer is not opposed by the learned standing counsel for the Revenue. The writ petition is dismissed, giving liberty to the petitioner to raise factual and legal contentions before the 7th respondent and they are permitted to file an additional written submission. The petitioner is granted seven (7) days time from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to file the written submissions.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Section 24(1) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 and its relation to Section 2(9) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Whether proceedings can be initiated under both Acts for the same transaction.
3. Permissibility of withdrawing a writ petition to approach the adjudicating authority under the Benami Prohibition Act.
4. Authority of the adjudicating body to address legal contentions and declare provisions as ultra vires.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought a writ of declaration challenging the compatibility of Section 24(1) of the Benami Property Transactions Act and Section 2(9) of the Income Tax Act, arguing that proceedings under both Acts for the same transaction should not be allowed. The court acknowledged the petitioner's concerns but emphasized that an adjudicating authority can address all legal and factual issues, including the contention raised in the writ petition.

2. The court noted that the order of proceedings (Benami Prohibition Act followed by Income Tax Act) prompted the filing of the writ petition. Despite the withdrawal of the petition, the petitioner was granted permission to submit additional written contentions before the adjudicating authority. The respondent did not object to this request, indicating a willingness to consider the petitioner's arguments.

3. In dismissing the writ petition, the court granted the petitioner the liberty to raise factual and legal contentions before the 7th respondent, the adjudicating authority under the Benami Prohibition Act. The petitioner was given seven days to file written submissions, after which the 7th respondent would schedule a hearing. The court clarified that the adjudicating authority does not have the power to issue a writ of declaration or declare provisions as ultra vires.

4. The judgment highlighted that the adjudicating authority's role is to address all questions of fact and law, ensuring that the petitioner has the opportunity to present their case comprehensively. The court's decision aimed to facilitate a fair and thorough adjudication process while maintaining the distinct functions of the judicial and adjudicating bodies involved in the case.