The AO passed the order treating the transactions as not genuine and made additions in respect of old high demonitised notes . The Department treated the transaction as not genuine and against such transfer of money by RTGS, for deposit of unaccounted cash in old high denomination notes, there was no actual delivery of gold bars. Summons were issued to the assessee under section\u00a019(1)(b)\u00a0of the\u00a0Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988\u00a0. The assessee filed a reply to the summons and the Deputy Commissioner required certain documents and clarifications, to which the assessee responded. An order of provisional attachment was passed, attaching the sundry debtors’ loans and advances and investments shown in the balance-sheet, under section\u00a024(3)\u00a0of the 1988 Act. A show-cause notice under section\u00a024(1)\u00a0of the 1988 Act, was issued to Yogesh Kumar More \u00a0and a copy was forwarded to the assessee which called for submission of an explanation from the assessee in the matter. The show-cause notice stated that the Department had sufficient documentary evidence to conclude that the transaction fell within the purview of a \u201cbenami transaction” and to treat the property in question as \u201cbenami property” within the meaning of section\u00a02(9)(C)\u00a0of the 1988 Act. In his reply to the notice, the assessee stated that he had not been provided with full copies of statements, affidavits and evidence, which was in violation of the principles of natural justice. The assessee made a request for passing a separate speaking order before passing the final order. On a writ dismissing the petition the Court held that \u00a0there was no provision in the 1988 Act for dealing separately with the preliminary objection and to pass any order before passing of the final order. Therefore, the request of the assessee to pass a separate order dealing with the objections was not supported by any provision of law. The contention of the assessee that section\u00a024(1)\u00a0of the 1988 Act and section\u00a0147\u00a0of the 1961 Act adopted the same language and were pari materia could not be accepted as the sphere and operation of these sections were completely different. Section\u00a024\u00a0of the 1988 Act and the subsequent provisions are for the purpose of concluding whether the property in question could be treated as benami property whereas the provisions of section\u00a0147\u00a0of the 1961 Act and the subsequent provisions, i. e., section\u00a0148\u00a0to section\u00a0153\u00a0would operate while the assessment or reassessment is undertaken by the assessing authority. Therefore, the contention of the assessee for passing a separate speaking order to the objections raised could not be accepted. Even otherwise, on the merits, when the assessee filed a reply to the notice, there was nothing in his reply which could be termed to be an objection of a preliminary nature which would be required to be dealt with before passing the final order.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Prohibition Of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988,
\nS.2(9) (c ) : Benami transaction \u2014 Notice and attachment- High demonitised notes – Preliminary objection not raised in reply to show-cause notice \u2014 No statutory provision for passing of separate order against objections raised \u2014 Provisions not pari materia with reassessment under Income-tax law \u2014 Objection of assessee is unsustainable. [S. 19(1)(g) ,24(2), 24(3) , ITAct, S.147 148,153A ]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-6860","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-digest"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-1ME","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6860","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6860"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6860\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":6861,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6860\/revisions\/6861"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6860"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6860"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6860"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}