Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2024 (11) TMI 793

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ce with Section 8(1) requirements - reasons to believe - HELD THAT:- In the instant case, reasons to believe were not conveyed to the appellant along with the notice issued by the Adjudicating Authority despite judgment of the various High Courts and even by this Tribunal holding that whenever a notice is caused by the Adjudicating Authority under Section 8(1) of the Act of 2002, reasons to believe recorded in writing have to be given to the defendants. However, the appellant was not given copy of the reasons to believe while issuing notice. Thus, on the aforesaid ground, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. This Tribunal while holding that the reasons to believe recorded in writing may not be required to be served under Section 5(1 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 9,325/- 2. Flat bearing No. First Floor, 1271-72, Faizganj, B.G. Road, Delhi. 64,81,340/- Puneet Jain and Dinesh Jain 32,40,670/- (50% value of property owned by Puneet Jain) 3. Amount Rs. 25,015.86 in Bank A/c No. 016651400000468 in the name of Puneet Jain maintained in Yes Bank, Chandni Chowk, Delhi. 25,015.86 Puneet Jain 25,015.86/- 4. Amount Rs. 7,99,495.26/- in Bank A/c No.915020059182040 in the name of M/s Aadi Traders maintained by Puneet Jain in Axis Bank, Chandni Chowk, Delhi- 110006. 7,99,495,26/- Puneet Jain 7,99,495.26/- 5. Amount Rs. 33,64,737.36 in Bank A/c No. 916020006141671 in the name of M/s Sunrise Trading Company maintained by Rajeev Singh Kushwaha in Axis Bank, Kashmere Gate, Delhi-110006. 33,64,737.36/- Rajeev Singh Ku .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ew No. X- 1363, Gali No. 3, Raj Garh Colony, Shahdara, Delhi. 1,62,91,319/- Vinod Deshmukh 1,62,91,319/- 14. Amount Rs. 9,99,574/- in Bank A/c no. 8811580520 in the name of M/s Ram Chander Sons maintained by Vinod Deshmukh in Kotak Mahindra Bank, Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006. 9,99,574/- Vinod Deshmukh 9,99,574/- 15. Amount Rs. 21,453/- in Bank A/c no. 2111565270 in the name of Vinod Deshmukh in Kotak Mahindra Bank, Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006 21,453/- Vinod Deshmukh 21,453/- 16. Amount Rs. 3,53,491.30/- in Bank A/c nо. 601120110000445 in the name of M/s Siddhnath Assaying Hallmarking Centre maintained by Vinod Deshmukh in Bank of India, Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006. 3,53,491.30/- Vinod Deshmukh 3,53,491.30/- 17. Amount Rs. 71,255/- in B .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Act of 2002, reasons to believe recorded in writing have to be given to the defendants. However, the appellant was not given copy of the reasons to believe while issuing notice. Thus, on the aforesaid ground, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that if the first ground is made out for causing interference in the order of the Adjudicating Authority, he is not required to raise any other issue at this stage. Rather, he would be satisfied for quashing of the order of the Adjudicating Authority. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent contested the appeal. It is submitted that reasons to believe are required to be satisfied but there is no mandate to serve a copy of it along with the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rt in the case of J. Sekar Vs. Union of India Ors. reported in 2018 SCC Online Del 6523. 9. This Tribunal while holding that the reasons to believe recorded in writing may not be required to be served under Section 5(1) of the Act of 2002 but notice under Section 8(1) of the Act of 2002 should be with reasons to believe of the Adjudicating Authority. It is for the reason that after the attachment, if it is confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority, it may ultimately affect the party and that cannot be without an opportunity to know the reasons to believe of the Adjudicating Authority. Accordingly, we find reason to cause interference in the impugned order passed by the Adjudicating Authority and it is accordingly set aside. The matter is rema .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates