Hazelnut Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax, (Benami Transaction) and Initiating Officer under The Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Act 1988, Jaipur / Union of India, New Delhi
[Citation -2019-LL-0923-79]

Citation 2019-LL-0923-79
Appellant Name Hazelnut Construction Pvt. Ltd.
Respondent Name Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax, (Benami Transaction) and Initiating Officer under The Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Act 1988, Jaipur / Union of India, New Delhi
Court HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Relevant Act Other Acts
Date of Order 23/09/2019
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags retrospective applicability • benami property
Bot Summary: Learned counsel for both the parties submit that the similar controversy has been examined by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 12th July, 2019 in the case of Niharika Jain Ors. The Coordinate Bench of this Court in para No.93, 94 95 of the judgment in the case of Niharika Jain Ors. For the reason aforesaid and in the backdrop of the settled legal proposition so also in view of singular factual matrix of the matters herein; this Court has no hesitation to hold that the Benami Amendment Act 2016, amending the Principal Benami Act 1988, enacted w.e.f. 1st November, 2016, i.e. the date determined by the Central Government in its wisdom for its enforcement; cannot have retrospective effect. It is made clear that this Court has neither examined nor commented upon merits of the writ applications but has considered only the larger question of retrospective applicability of the Benami Amendment Act, 2016 amending the original Benami Act of 1988. Thus, the authority concerned would examine each case on its own merits keeping in view the fact that amended provisions introduced and the amendments enacted and made enforceable w.e.f. 1st November, 2016; would be prospective and not retrospective. Learned counsel for the Revenue Mr.RB Mathur submits that the respondents have already preferred an appeal before the Division Bench and as such, whatever outcome of the appeal, the same will also govern the present cases as well. This Court, considering the nature of the controversy which has already been decided, deems it proper to dispose the present writ petitions as per the terms, which have been given in the case of Niharika Jain Ors.


HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11744/2019 Hazelnut Construction Pvt. Ltd., 514, Dalamal Towers, 211, Fpj Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai, Maharashtra-400021 Through Authorized Representative Sh. Sanjay Harkishore Parekh S/o Sh. Harkishore Kevelchand Parekh, Aged About 58 Years, Authorized Representative C/o Hazelnut Construction Pvt. Ltd., 514, Dalamal Towers, 211, Fpj Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai, Maharashtra-400021. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Benami Transaction) And Initiating Officer Under Prohibition Of Benami Property Transaction Act 1988, Room No. 250, Statue Circle, Ncrb, Income Tax Office, Jaipur. 2. Union Of India, Through Its Secretary, Income Tax Department, Government Of India, New Delhi. ----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13166/2019 Smt. Sanju Devi W/o Late Sh. Naruram Meena, Ward No. 6, Famnawali Dhani, Deepawas, Via Ganeshwar, Tehsil Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar, Rajasthan ----Petitioner Versus Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Benami Transaction) And Initiating Officer Under Prohibition Of Benami Property Transaction Act 1988, Room No. 250, Statue Circle, Ncrb, Income Tax Office, Jaipur ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Bharat Vyas with Ms.Neha Gyanlani & Mr.Ramdhan For Respondent(s) : Mr.RB Mathur with Ms.Tanvi Sahai HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR Order (2 of 3) [CW-11744/2019] 23/09/2019 In both writ petitions, petitioners have common grievance, as they have challenged proceedings initiated under Section 24 of Benami Property Transaction Act, 1988 (for short Act of 1988 ). Learned counsel for both parties submit that similar controversy has been examined by Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 12th July, 2019 in case of Niharika Jain & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (SB Civil Writ Petition No.2915/2019) along with other connected writ petitions. Coordinate Bench of this Court in para No.93, 94 & 95 of judgment in case of Niharika Jain & Ors. (supra) has held as under : 93. For reason aforesaid and in backdrop of settled legal proposition so also in view of singular factual matrix of matters herein; this Court has no hesitation to hold that Benami Amendment Act 2016, amending Principal Benami Act 1988, enacted w.e.f. 1st November, 2016, i.e. date determined by Central Government in its wisdom for its enforcement; cannot have retrospective effect. 94. It is made clear that this Court has neither examined nor commented upon merits of writ applications but has considered only larger question of retrospective applicability of Benami Amendment Act, 2016 amending original Benami Act of 1988. Thus, authority concerned would examine each case on its own merits keeping in view fact that amended provisions introduced and amendments enacted and made enforceable w.e.f. 1st November, 2016; would be prospective and not retrospective. (3 of 3) [CW-11744/2019] 95. batch of writ applications stands disposed off, as indicated above. Learned counsel for Revenue Mr.RB Mathur submits that respondents have already preferred appeal before Division Bench and as such, whatever outcome of appeal, same will also govern present cases as well. This Court, considering nature of controversy which has already been decided, deems it proper to dispose present writ petitions as per terms, which have been given in case of Niharika Jain & Ors. (supra). judgment in case of Niharika Jain & Ors. (supra) will apply on all four corners to present controversy. It goes without saying that if any order is passed by Division Bench in appeal preferred by Revenue, parties would be bound by same. Ordered accordingly. copy of this order be placed separately in connected writ petition. (ASHOK KUMAR GAUR),J Preeti Asopa /5 & 130 Hazelnut Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax, (Benami Transaction) and Initiating Officer under Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Act 1988, Jaipur / Union of India, New Delhi
Report Error