Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 114786 (ALL)

SAVITA PATHAK v. UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE DEPTT. OF REVENUE CBDT NEW DELHI AND 2 OTHERS

WTAX/6/2025 · 2025-01-20

Pankaj Bhatia

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:3213 Court No. - 7 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 6 of 2025 Petitioner :- Savita Pathak Respondent :- Union Of India Ministry Of Finance Deptt. Of Revenue Cbdt New Delhi And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Punit Kumar Srivastava,Ishank Srivastava,Rakesh Srivastava,Shashank Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Kushagra Dikshit Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; Dr. Ravi Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for respondent no.1; and Shri Nirav Chitravanshi and Shri Kushagra Dikshit, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 & 3. 2. Present petition has been filed challenging the order passed under Section 24(4) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988. 3. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that no notice was served as is prescribed under Section 24(1) of Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act. 4. The order impugned records that the show-cause notice was served on the registered address and email ID of the benamidar - the petitioner herein. The postal notice returned unserved. It further records that thereafter it was served on the another address available in the database but the same also remain unserved. It further records that the notice was sent to yet another address and was also sent on the registered email ID of the petitioner, however, no reply has been filed. The order impugned records prima-facie satisfaction for initiating the proceedings and further steps have been taken in terms of the material as were recorded in the impugned order, including the fact that as per the banking channels, no consideration was paid for the sale deed. The impugned order also records the order passed by this Court. 5. The petition on record does not demonstrate anything in the form of any evidence to suggest that the notice was not served; even there is no material to suggest or prima-facie show the test of prejudice that may have been caused to the petitioner on account of alleged non-service of notice. 6. No interference is called for at this stage. However, the proceedings which are said to be pending and fixed for today shall be taken in accordance with law. 7. Present petition stands dismissed in above terms. Order Date :- 20.1.2025 nishant Digitally signed by :- NISHANT MOHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench