Benami s.26(7) — the law in short
What the courts have decided on section Benami s.26(7), 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.
-
Adjudicating Authority v Anuttam Academic Institutions
High CourtHelps departmentNo later treatment found
The adjudication order is dated inside the one-year period in s.26(7), but the certified copy reached me weeks after it expired. Is the order time-barred?
No. The Madras High Court held that the one-year period in s.26(7) governs when the Adjudicating Authority must make its order, and that the order is made on the date it is passed and entered in the Authority's registers, not on the date a certified copy is prepared or despatched. Delay in preparing and communicating certified copies is a procedural lapse which does not postpone the date of making the order.
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.
