The High Court in (2023] 21 ITR-OL 509 (Mad) declined to interfere with the provisional attachment order made by the Dy CIT ( Benami Prohibition) under section 24(4) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988.
The Court defended their stance by citing Supreme Court decision in C. B. Gautam v. Union of India [1993] 199 ITR 530 (SC) in the context of transactions falling within section 269 UD(1) domain(undervaluation in agreement of sale) and further thus pointed out that in the said case, neither show-cause notice was given nor reasons were assigned in the impugned compulsory purchase order. In the present case show-cause notice has been issued, opportunity has been given to the petitioner. The order impugned is provisional/tentative in nature. It is subject to judicial review by the adjudicating authority. If the order of the adjudicating authority goes against the petitioner, the further forums of judicial review of the said order is available to the petitioner before the Appellate Tribunal and then before this court. Hence, against the tentative/provisional order, no interference is warranted by this court at this stage. As per the scheme of the Act, the petitioner can raise all possible grounds before the adjudicating authority. The adjudicating authority is best suited and statutorily obliged to consider all relevant aspects. Thus, at this stage no case is made out for interference.