TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (1) TMI 687
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....roperties attached 18611 of 2023 M/s.Varficus Venture Private Limited (Previously - M/s.GEAPL Infrastructure Private Limited Plot No.173, Door No.24, Karpagam Garden, First Main Road, Adayar, Chennai- 600 020 19819 of 2023 M.Kumudhavalli Residential apartment "COURT YARD" bearing No.709, 7th floor, 1825 sq. ft. in New Door No.3, Old door No.19, Plot No.21, 3rd Main Road, Ram Nagar, Nanganallur,Chennai-600 061. 20362 of 2023 1.N.Muthu Narayanan 2.M.Kumudhavalli Immovable property in the form of land of 7 acres and 62 cents along with well in survey No.144/4 and 5 HP electric pumpset motor at Kollathanallur village, Chithamur Panchayat Union, Kancheepuram District 20303 of 2023 N.Muthu Narayan Flat 1, II Floor, GRN Divine Castle, No.28A, 100 Feet Road, Hindu Colony, Nanganallur, Chennai 600061. 2. The Petitioners allege: ● The petitioners herein, along with another, were booked for the offence under Section 409, 420, 465 and 468 I.P.C. in Crime No.92 of 2020, on the file of CCB-II, and they were taken into judicial custody about a year later, on 20.12.2022 and were in judicial custody till 24.03.2023. This fact is not in dispute. ● While so, on 30.01.202....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....officer. This approval in terms of the document provided is seen to have been given only on 20.04.2023, whereas the provisional order of attachment was made on 03.02.2023. Under Section 24(3) of the Act, the approval of the approving authority is a precondition even for the initiating officer to attach the property even provisionally. The provisions of the statute are allowed to go with the wind, and the authorities have shown scant regard to the same, argued the counsel. Reliance was placed on the ratio in J.Sekar Vs. Union of India [(2018) 89 Taxmann.com 159], Shri Ajay Kumar Gupta Vs Adjudicating Authority (PMLA) [ 2017 MCH 4443]; Siemens Ltd. Vs State of Maharashtra and Others [(2006) 12 SCC 33]; Union of India and Another Vs Vicco Laboratories [(2007) 13 SCC 270]; Oryx Fisheries Private Limited Vs Union of India and Others [(2010) 13 SCC 427]. 3. Per Contra, the learned counsel appearing for the department submitted: a) Regarding service of show cause notice on the petitioners at a time when they were in judicial custody is concerned, the F.I.R. in Crime No.92 of 2020 was registered against the petitioners on 23.11.2020, whereas the petitioners were arrested and remanded t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rt of Madhya Pradesh in Simmant Kohli Vs Union of India in W.P.No.3957/2019 & 3963/2019 dated 17.12.2019. 4. The relevant portion in J.Sekar Vs. Union of India [(2018) 89 Taxmann.com 159], and Shri Ajay Kumar Gupta Vs Adjudicating Authority (PMLA) [ 2017 MCH 4443] are extracted hereunder : In J .Sekar Vs. Union of India case : "72. Reasons to believe cannot be a rubber stamping of the opinion already formed by someone else. The officer who is supposed to write down his reasons to believe has to independently apply his mind. Further, and more importantly, it cannot be mechanical reproduction of the words in the statute. When an authority judicially reviewing such a decision peruses such reasons to believe, it must be apparent to the reviewing authority that the officer penning the reasons has applied his mind to the materials available on record and has, on that basis, arrived at his reasons to believe. The process of thinking of the officer must be discernible. The reasons have to be made explicit. It is only the reasons that can enable the reviewing authority to discern how the officer formed his reasons to believe. As explained in Oriental Insurance Company v. Commissioner o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....into, it makes benami transaction a crime, and besides providing for the confiscation of the property found to be held benami, it also provides that both the benamidars and the beneficiary are liable for criminal prosecution under Sec.53 of the Act. An attachment of the property till an order of confiscation is made is only a preliminary step in that direction, and all that is required at that point in time is the existence of a suspicion that the property could be involved in a benami transaction. Here is a situation where a FIR is laid against the petitioners in Cr.No:.92 of 2020 on 23.11.2020, the Income Tax Department has taken a couple of years to believe that that the property could be involved in a benami transaction. When a show cause notice under Sec.24(1) is issued, it is based only on this prima facie suspicion, and this suspicion is sufficient for the initiating authority to form an opinion on provisional attachment. Set in the context, Sec.24(1) notice does not conclude anything as to affect the right of the petitioners. Indeed, the Act provides lots of checks and balances within its scheme in order to ensure that right to property of the citizen is not invaded and tra....