Decided on September 07,2018

Motor Stand Foreign Liquor And Anr Appellant
Union Of India And 2 Ors Respondents


Achintya Malla Bujor Barua, J. - (1.) Heard Mr. H. Buragohain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. N. Gogoi, learned counsel for the respondents in the 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/information as indicated in the notice and for the purpose; the date fixed was 22.09.2017 at 11.30 a.m. As per the notice, the petitioner was required to show all the requisite details comprising of bank statements, balance sheets and other related documents as a matter of evidence in support that the petitioner No.1 liquor shop is actually the business of the petitioner No.2 and that it is not a benami business of one Pradip Kumar Saha of Kaman Chowmuhani, Agartala.
(3.) The said notice had been issued by the Income Tax Department in the backdrop of the fact that there was a proceeding initiated against the Pardip Kumar Saha under the Income Tax Act and as a result, the department had the information that he is making benami investment in certain liquor shops. According to the department, the investigation revealed that Pradip Kumar Saha was also indulging in making benami investment in the petitioner No.1 shop and in the circumstance, notice under Section 19(1) of the Act, 1988 was issued by which the department sought for the necessary documents from the petitioner No.1 so as to enable them to arrive at a conclusion that the petitioner No.1 business is the own business of the petitioner No.2 and that it is not a benami business of the aforesaid Pradip Kumar Saha.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.