TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (9) TMI 311
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ner raised the ground that the impugned order is per se illegal and violative of the principles of natural justice. 3. The petitioner states that he joined service in the Revenue Department, Government of Tamil Nadu in 1977 and subsequently, elevated from State Civil Services to Indian Administrative Services in 2000 Batch allotment. He was serving in the Tamil Nadu Warehousing Corporation as Managing Director from 8th September 2014 onwards. 4. In pursuance of a search warrant issued by the Income Tax Department (Investigation Wing) in the name of B.Ayyappan, who was said to be the Managing Director of M/s.Kathir Kaman Jewellers (P) Ltd, Chennai. Further, a search warrant was issued in the name of Mrs.R.Sabitharani, the petitioner's spouse to search her residence in Issa Pallavaram, Chennai, wherein the petitioner lives with his spouse. The search was conducted on 23rd and 24th of November, 2016. Some items of gold and an amount of Rs. 7,28,300/- in cash were found during search. The petitioner's spouse, who had been working as the Chief Technical Officer (C.T.O.) in Central Bank of India since 1985 with a substantial income as salaries and other emoluments, admitted....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s, surmises and speculations. Thus, the impugned orders do not have its legs to stand before the scrutiny of law. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated that the provisions of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 pertaining to the transactions entered into 28.10.2016 prior to the amendment Act cannot be enforced. Admittedly, the amendment Act came into force only on 01.11.2016, after the alleged transaction. Thus, the very initiation itself is in violation of the provisions of the Act. The impugned orders are passed based on the reliance on the sworn statement of one B.Ayyappan, Managing Director of M/s.Kathir Kaman Jewellers (P) Ltd, Chennai. Thus, there is no basis for such initiation. 9. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3 contended that the amendment Acts of the year, 2016, more specifically, Section 1 Sub-Section (3) categorically states that "the provisions of Sections 3, 5 and 8 shall came into force at once and the remaining provisions of this Act shall be deemed to have come into force on 19th day of May 1988". Therefore, the intention of the Legislature is to ensure that the pre-amendment Act is in for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ur rendered a judgment on 06.02.2020 in the case of Tulsiram and Ors. Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Benami Prohibition) and Ors. reported in [MANU/CG/0099/2020] held as follows: "10.V. As regards the intention of the Legislature, while enacting the Amendment Act of 2016, the clarification given by the Hon'ble Finance Minister in the Lok Sabha on 27.07.2016 while recommending the Amendment Bill, 2016 to the House. He stated that "....if we brought a new Bill, properties acquired benami between the period of 1988 onwards would have all gone scot free. So, it was considered necessary that the old law be allowed to remain, and the new amendments be inserted into the old law itself." "VIII. The object of the Act was clearly stated by the then Finance Minister while introducing the Amendment Act, 2016 as "....the principal object behind this bill is that a lot of people who have unaccounted money invest and buy immovable property in the name of some other person or a non-existent person or a fictitious person or a benami person. So, these transactions are to be discouraged......It is predominantly an anti-black money measure that any transaction which is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (i) pass an order continuing the provisional attachment of the property with the prior approval of the Approving Authority, till the passing of the order by the Adjudicating Authority under Sub-Section (3) of Section 26; or" 14. Therefore, the impugned order dated 12.05.2017 is only a provisional attachment of the property with the prior approval of the approving authority till the passing of the order by the adjudicating authority under Sub-Section (3) of Section 26. After making such provisional attachment, Sub-Section (5) to Section 24 states that "Where the Initiating Officer passes an order continuing the provisional attachment of the property under sub-clause (i) of clause (a) of Sub-Section (4) or passes an order provisionally attaching the property under sub-clause (i) of clause (b) of that sub-section, he shall, within fifteen days from the date of the attachment, draw up a statement of the case and refer it to the Adjudication Authority." 15. Section 25 speaks about Adjudication of benami property. Section 26 contemplates "Manner of service of notice." Sub-Section (1) to Section 26 reads as under: "(1) Manner of service of notice- (1) On receipt of ....