Benami s.24(5) — the law in short
What the courts have decided on section Benami s.24(5), in one screen. Read this first; open an entry when you need the facts, the reasoning and the source.
-
Initiating Officer, ACIT (Benami Prohibition) v Appellate Tribunal
High CourtHelps departmentNo later treatment found
The High Court stopped the Adjudicating Authority from passing its order. Does the one-year limit in s.26(7) run out while the stay is on?
No. On this clarification application the Delhi High Court directed that the period during which its interim order of 21 December 2020 continues to operate shall be excluded in computing the period of limitation under s.26(7) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act. A coordinate Bench had earlier clarified in similar circumstances that the Explanation to s.26(7) applies, so the one-year period does not expire on the expiry of a year from the end of the month in which the s.24(5) reference was received.
-
Ace Infracity Developers v Initiating Officer, BPU-1, Mumbai
ITATHelps taxpayerNo later treatment found
The benami show-cause notice came from an Initiating Officer in a city where neither the property nor my client sits. Does that matter?
It is fatal to the notice. The Appellate Tribunal held that an Initiating Officer may act only where one of the three limbs — the benami transaction or property, the benamidar, or the beneficial owner — falls within the territorial jurisdiction assigned to him by the CBDT's notification S.O. 1621(E) dated 18 May 2017. The Mumbai Initiating Officer had none of them, so the notice and everything built on it went, and the adjudication order was set aside without any finding on the merits.
Listed strongest first: Supreme Court, then High Court, then Tribunal, then CBDT. Nothing here has yet been read in full by a chartered accountant — open an entry to see where it came from.
