Court rejects petition for speaking order under Benami Property Act, emphasizes distinct purposes

The Court dismissed the petition seeking a direction for a speaking order under the Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988. It held that the Act does not require separate consideration of preliminary objections before passing the final order. The petitioner's reliance on a case law stating the right to file objections and obtain a speaking order was rejected. The Court differentiated the Benami Act from the Income Tax Act, emphasizing their distinct purposes. It concluded that the petitioner's subsequent request for a separate speaking order appeared to be an attempt to delay proceedings, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the petition.

---

---

Issues:
Seeking direction for passing a speaking order under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed a petition under Article 226 seeking a direction for the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax to pass a speaking order disposing of objections raised before the final order under the Benami Act. The petitioner had raised objections regarding a transaction involving deposit of old high demonetized notes, leading to a summons under the Benami Act. The petitioner requested the respondent to deal with objections before passing the final order. The petitioner relied on a case stating that the noticee is entitled to file objections, and the Assessing Officer must pass a speaking order. However, the Court found that the Benami Act does not provide for dealing separately with preliminary objections before passing the final order.

The Court examined the petitioner's reply to the show cause notice and subsequent communications. The petitioner raised concerns about not being provided with full copies of statements, affidavits, and evidence, citing a violation of natural justice. The petitioner's reply mainly focused on the case's merits and defenses, with no preliminary objections highlighted. The petitioner later requested a separate speaking order before the final order, referencing the Income Tax Act and a relevant judgment. The Court noted that the Benami Act does not mandate a separate order for objections and rejected the petitioner's claim based on the cited case law.

Regarding the petitioner's reliance on a judgment related to the Income Tax Act, the Court differentiated the operation of Section 24 of the Benami Act and Section 147 of the Income Tax Act. The Court emphasized that the Benami Act aims to determine if the property is benami, while the Income Tax Act deals with income assessment. The Court found no preliminary objections in the petitioner's reply that necessitated separate consideration before the final order. The Court dismissed the petition, concluding that the subsequent request for a separate speaking order seemed like an afterthought to delay proceedings under the Benami Act.

---