2026 (4) TMI 276

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... condoning the delay of 763 days in filing the appeal after the expiry of period of limitation, the present appeal is filed. 2. Short facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are as under: 2.1. It is averred that the appellant is one of the co-owners of Spectrum Mall, which was a joint venture between Ganga Foundations Pvt. Ltd and the other owners. During the month of November, 2017, a search was conducted by the Income Tax Department in the premises of the appellant, consequent to a search in the case of second respondent. 2.2. It is stated that, during the course of search, the appellant was questioned about the sale of his share in the Spectrum Mall to the second respondent. Since the appellant had no idea about the entire tr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ct, 1988 and made a reference to the Adjudicating Authority to conduct the adjudication proceedings under Section 26(3) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Act, 1988. 2.6. It is stated that pursuant to the orders passed by this Court in the earlier round of litigation, the Adjudicating Authority considered the reply of the appellant, passed the order under Section 26(3) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Act, 1988 and refused to confirm the order of attachment made under Section 24(3) holding that there is no "benami transaction". 2.7. It is stated that thereafter the first respondent preferred the statutory appeal before the Appellate Tribunal with a delay of 763 days in filing the appeal. Though the appe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ribunal, after hearing both parties and upon consideration of the detailed explanation, exercised its discretion and condoned the delay on being satisfied that sufficient cause had been shown and such finding of the Tribunal does not warrant any interference. 4.2. It is further submitted that the delay occurred due to bona fide administrative circumstances beyond the control of the department. The Tribunal, being the statutory fact finding appellate authority, examined the explanation and exercised its discretion to condone the delay. 4.3. Relying on a decision of the Supreme Court in Vinod Gandhi v. The District Collector, Madurai & Ors. [SLP (C) No.4337/2025, dated 22.01.2026], it is submitted that the interest of the State should n....