TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (9) TMI 2173
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Income Tax Department as well as Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned AGI for the Union of India. 2. The petitioner No.1 is a licensed retail shop dealing in the liquor business in the category of (IMFL) Off, whereas, the petitioner No. 2 is the proprietor thereof. The petitioners are income tax assessee and it is stated that they are paying the income tax as required under the law in due and appropriate manner, without there being any allegation by the income tax authorities of non-payment thereof. But however, a notice under Section 19(1) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 (in short Act of 1988) dated 13.09.2017 was served on the petitioner. By the said notice, the petitioner was required to furnish certain documents/inf....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....equired to provide the aforesaid documents on 10.01.2018 at 11.30 am. According to the petitioner, the required documents had been furnished to the Income Tax authorities as per the communication of the petitioner No. 2 dated 01.10.2017. However, the Income Tax authorities being not satisfied with the documents that the petitioner had submitted, issued the notice dated 28.03.2018 under Section 24 of the Act of 1988 was issued. 5. In the notice dated 28.03.2018, the detailed analysis as to why the department is of the opinion that the petitioner is indulging in a benami transaction of the properties of the Pradip Kumar Saha was provided and the petitioner was given an opportunity to show cause as to why all the assets appearing in the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by the petitioner in paragraph-6 of their reply dated 16.04.2018 had not been given a due consideration before the provisional order of attachment was passed. It is taken note of in paragraph-6 of the reply dated 16.04.2018, the petitioner No. 2 took a stand that Pradip Kumar Saha was not the real owner of his business and he was only interested in getting some profit and has a limited interest in the arrangement. 9. Petitioner No.2 also took the stand that as an amount of Rs. 25 lakhs was required for a smooth running of the business, therefore, the Pradip Kumar Saha had invested the money in the shape of stock in trade by depositing an amount of Rs. 25,00,000/- in bank Account No. 20064980712 with SBI Bank on different dates, so tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e or denies the knowledge of such ownership or where the transaction or an arrangement in respect of a property where the person providing the consideration thereof is not traceable or is fictitious. In view of the aforesaid meaning of the term Benami Transaction, the authorities in the respondent Income Tax Department are required to examine the stand of the petitioner made in paragraph-6 of their reply dated 16.04.2018 and arrive at a conclusion whether the same amounts to benami transaction or not. 13. In the aforesaid circumstance, this Court is of the view that instead of exercising the discretion of continuing the interim order passed on 01.08.2018, the interest of justice will be met and the public revenue will be better served....