Dismissed¶15

Rohit Hasmukhlal Joshi v. Initiating Authority and the Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Nagpur and Anr.

Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 – Show-cause notice under Section 24(1)

Bombay HC24 Mar 2025WP/1562/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench (Gharote & Mantri, JJ.), W.P. No. 1562 of 2025, decided 24/03/2025: Rohit Hasmukhlal Joshi v. Initiating Authority & ACIT Benami Property Unit, Nagpur. Petition against benami show-cause notice dated 10/03/2023 dismissed on both grounds: (i) notice discloses reason to belief/application of mind per Section 24(1) PBPT Act 1988; (ii) service per Section 25 (post or court summons under CPC) proper as addresses in notice, petition and affidavit match. No costs.

What did the court decide?

None; petition dismissed with no costs awarded. ¶15

Rohit Hasmukhlal Joshi vs Initiating Authority and the Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Nagpur and Anr. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; petition dismissed with no costs awarded.

¶15

Issue for consideration

Whether the show-cause notice dated 10/03/2023 issued by respondent No.1 discloses a reason to believe, in terms of Section 24(1) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988. +1 more

¶12

Court's answer

The impugned show-cause notice dated 10/03/2023 was issued after considering the entire material available and indicates application of mind, as stated in paras 8 and 9 of the notice.

¶12

Ratio / Principle

Reasons recorded need not be verbose; it suffices that they indicate sufficient application of mind to the facts on record to form an opinion, which the impugned show cause notice does; the challenge to the show cause notice dated 10/03/2023 on this ground is therefore not accepted.

¶13

Key takeaways

Under Section 25 of the Act of 1988, the notice under Section 24 may be served on the person named therein either by post or as if it were a summon issued by a Court under CPC.ratio¶15
The address in the show-cause notice dated 10/03/2023 (page 47) and the address quoted in the petition and in the affidavit to the petition are one and the same; the petitioner's contention that he was not residing at the address to which the notice was addressed therefore lacks substance and is rejected.ratio¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 - Show-cause notice under Section 24(1) - Writ petition challenging notice dated 10/03/2023 issued by respondent No.1 - Notice held to have been issued after considering the entire material available and indicating application of mind (paras 8 and 9 of the notice); reasons recorded need not be verbose, only sufficient application of mind to the facts on record required - Objection as to service under Section 25 untenable: notice may be served by post or as a summon under CPC, and the address in the notice is identical to that quoted in the petition and its affidavit - Writ petition dismissed, no costs.

¶1

2025:BHC-NAG:2916-DB

¶2

ORDER DATED 24/03/2025 1 24-wp 1562.2025.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 1562 OF 2025

¶5

( Rohit Hasmukhlal Joshi vs. Initiating Authority & the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Benami Property Unit, Nagpur and another )

¶6

Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of the directions Court's or Judge's order and Registrar's orders.

¶7

Mr.M.M.Bhusari, Advocate and Mr.Kapil Hirani, Advocate for petitioner.

¶8

CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE AND

¶9

ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.

¶10

DATE : MARCH 24, 2025

¶11

1. Heard Mr.Bhusari, learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶12

The petition challenges the show-cause notice dated 10/03/2023 issued by respondent No.1 on the ground that it does not disclose any reason to believe, in terms of Section 24(1) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988. We have perused the impugned notice dated 10/03/2023, and we find that it has been issued, after considering the entire material available and also indicates application of mind in view of what has been stated in paras 8 and 9 therein.

¶13

It is a settled position of law that the reasons recorded, need not be verbose, but should only indicate sufficient application of mind to the facts on record to form an opinion which is what we find has been done in the impugned show cause notice. We therefore, do not see any reason to accept the challenge to the show cause notice dated 10/03/2023 on this ground.

¶14

ORDER DATED 24/03/2025 2 24-wp 1562.2025.doc

¶15

The next ground is that the show cause notice dated 10/03/2023 was not served to the petitioner in the manner as contemplated in Section 25 of the Act of 1988. Perusal of the provisions of Section 25 of the Act of 1988 would indicate that the notice under Section 24 may be served on the person named therein either by post or as if it were a summon issued by a Court under CPC. The only ground raised in the petition is that the petitioner was not residing at the address to which notice was addressed. It would be material to note that the address in the show-cause notice dated 10/03/2023 (page 47) and the one quoted in the petition as well as in the affidavit to the petition are one and the same. That being the position we do not find substance in this contention, the same is therefore rejected. We, therefore, do not find any substance in this petition, therefore dismissed. No costs.

¶16

(ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.) (AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)

¶17

KOLHE

¶18

Signed by: Mr. Ravikant Kolhe Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 24/03/2025 18:37:54

Rohit Hasmukhlal Joshi v. Initiating Authority and the Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Nagpur and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rohit Hasmukhlal Joshi v. Initiating Authority and the Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Nagpur and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Harshal Gramin Vikas Bahu Sanstha, Mul, Chandrapur Thr. President vs State of Maha., Thr. Secy., Dept. of Water Supply and Sanitation, Mumbai and Anr.

Ruhant Mazoor Sahkari Sanstha Maryadit, Bhandara and Others Vs the State of Maha. Thr. Its Sec. Public Works Dept. Mantralaya Mumbai and Another

Babarao S/O Pandu Urwate and Others vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Collector, Yavatmal and Others

Ameya Hansraj Bhaisare vs State of Maha. Thr. Its Secretary, Mantralaya, Mumbai and Others

Suryakant S/O Sambhaji Khade and Another vs State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Department of Co-Operation, Mumbai and Others

Sunita W/O. Pradip Lolure @ Sunita D/O. Virsing Dhonde vs State of Maha., Thr. Secy., General Administration Dept., Mumbai and Ors.