9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (11) TMI 5X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which the reliefs were prayed were as follows : In 1972, the respondent purchased from Binod Bihari Mahto and others 26 bighas odd decimals of land described in schedule A to the plaint for a total consideration of more than Rs. 50,000. As the value of the property at schedule A was more than Rs. 50,000, the respondent (sic) was required to obtain income-tax clearance certificate and also to pay incometax on the value of the land. To avoid this, the respondent obtained two sale deeds from the Mahtos, one in his name which is described in schedule B to the plaint and the other in the name of the appellant, his nephew, which is described in schedule C to the plaint. The value of the schedule C property was Rs. 19,751. After the purchase, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... below. That order has been challenged in this appeal. Mr. Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that although the court below noticed some of the documents filed by the appellant in support of his case, it did not record any finding about the effect of those documents. He also urged that the documents filed by the appellant were not noticed by the court below. With regard to the finding of prima facie case in favour of the respondent, Mr. Sinha urged that the court below recorded that in a case of benami transaction, custody of documents is one of the most important ingredients and without recording any further reasons, the court below held that the respondent had a prima facie case. According to the respondent, after he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndent without considering the value of the letter dated December 15, 1972. No prima facie finding was recorded by it about the source of consideration. The court below was also required to see the effect of other documents filed by the respondent and the appellant for recording a finding on the question of prima facie case. As that has not been done, the finding on that point cannot be sustained. It appears from the impugned order that the court below held the other two points in favour of the respondent as it found a prima facie case in his favour. For these reasons, the order of the court below cannot be sustained. Section 281A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short), as amended with effect from April 1, 1984, and as it stood ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no order as to costs. After I had dictated the order, Mr. Dey, learned counsel for the respondent, submitted that he has no instruction whether notice as required under section 281A of the Act was given before the institution of the suit. He, therefore, submitted that if notice had been given, the respondent shall file an application for amendment of the plaint. If any such application for amendment is filed, the court below shall dispose of the same in accordance with law. In view of the submission of Mr. Dey, I am not dismissing the suit as not maintainable but am giving an opportunity to the respondent to file an application in the court below regarding the facts which are required to be pleaded as provided under section 281A of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
