Mabrook Shah Rukh: Authority revokes benami attachment order against King Khan

Agencies
January 29, 2019

New Delhi, Jan 29: Actor Shah Rukh Khan has been absolved of the charge of being a beneficiary of a benami property in the scenic beach town of Alibaug in Maharashtra as an appellate Authority under the law has "revoked" the attachment order of the I-T Department, calling it baseless and coloured.

The Adjudicating Authority (AA) slammed the income tax department authority for issuing the order against Khan and a company-- in which he, his wife Gauri Khan and in-laws are shareholders-- in February last year, saying a "commerical transaction entered into course of business by an independent entity cannot be coloured as benami transaction because it had sourced the funds from loans."

A division bench of the AA comprising D Singhai (Chairperson) and Member (Law) Tushar V Shah exonerated Khan and said: "We have come to the conclusion that the named properties, ie, agriculture land at village Thal, Taluka Alibaug bearing survey nos 188/A, 188/1B, 188/2, 188/3, 188/4, 187/1 and structure thereon are not a benami property and hence the attachment made thereof by the investigating officer is revoked hereby."

The tax department had attached the farm house and plot, built on an agricultural land, in Alibaug, worth about Rs 15 crore, and had called the company-Ms Deja Vu Farms Pvt Ltd- a benamidar (in whose name benami property is standing) and the 53-year-old actor a beneficiary (who pays money consideration) of a benami deal booked under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Act.

The 1988 enacted law was implemented by the Modi government from November, 2016 with a strong impetus, saying it was aimed to crack down against black money and stash holders.

The AA bench, in the order accessed by PTI, also rapped the probe officer of the I-T Department in Mumbai for seemingly relying on "some press report/online articles" that Khan acquired the property for his benefit, which it said was "incorrect and impermissible in law."

"There is no basis to conclude that the property acquired by Deja Vu Farms Pvt Ltd is held for immediate or future benefit, direct or indirect of Shah Rukh Khan," the January, 23 issued order said.

The Authority rejected the I-T Department's allegation that the entire transaction of purchasing the land parcels in Alibaug and construction of a luxury farm house on it was done on the "desire and instruction"of Khan and from "unsecured loans" of about Rs 14.67 crore provided by him to the firm.

The I-T had also charged that as Khan was "not an agriculturist, he sought to purchase the land by forming Ms Deja Vu Farms Pvt Ltd, a front entity and giving it colour of company engaged in agriculture."

The department had also said in its order that a person Moreshwar Rajaram Ajgaonkar was a "front" of Khan as the the actor used the former's credentials of being an agriculturist to purchase the land by making a representation under the said category before the Additional Collector of Raigad, the district under which Alibaug falls.

It had also charged that the company was incorporated "on the instructions" of Khan as he was interested in purchasing a property in Alibaug for construction of a farm house.

The taxman had said in its complaint that the objective of the firm (Deja Vu) was stated to undertake agricultural activity on the land and the Raigad district state government gave permission to purchase the land with a "condition" that it will be put to use within 3 years for the purposes of farming.

The AA also found as "justified" the contention of Khan and his company that a private firm can borrow funds even from its shareholders and that there has been no concealment of the loan given by the actor which has been "disclosed" by the former in its annual returns for the last several years.

The Authority said that it was "beyond doubt" that the Alibaug property was acquired and held by the company in its own right and independent of any other person.

"There is nothing to raise the inference or presumption in law that the property owned by a company can be said to be held for the benefit of its shareholder," the Authority ruled, absolving Khan of the criminal charges under the stringent law.

As per the anti-benami law, once proven, a benamidar (in whose name benami property is standing) and beneficiary (who pay money consideration) are prosecutable and may face rigorous imprisonment up to 7 years besides being liable to pay fine up to 25 per cent of fair market value of benami property.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
November 22,2024

bjpprotest.jpg

Bengaluru, Nov 22: For the second day running, the Karnataka BJP on Friday staged a statewide protest condemning the government’s alleged move to notify land of farmers as Waqf property.

The BJP staged a protest before the offices of Deputy Commissioners at district headquarters.

The BJP leaders are vehemently demanding that the state government cancel a 1974 Gazette notification in this regard.

The agitators are also demanding scrapping of the Waqf Board and the resignation of Chief Minister Siddaramaiah and Minister for Waqf and Housing Zameer Ahmad Khan.

The BJP MLAs, MLCs, MPs gathered in the premises of Freedom Park and staged a protest under the leadership of Leader of Opposition R. Ashoka and slammed the state government.

MLA T.S. Srivatsa led the protest in Mysuru and hundreds of party workers and farmers staged the protest under the leadership of former MP Pratap Simha in Kodagu.

Former MP Sumalatha Ambareesh led the agitation in Mandya.

This was the first time that Sumalatha took part in the party’s programme after the Lok Sabha elections.

State President B.Y. Vijayendra claimed, “The Congress government in Karnataka is issuing notices to farmers claiming the ownership of their lands to the Waqf Board and pushing them on the streets overnight.”

In the first week of December, three teams formed by the BJP will travel across the state and record the grievances of farmers.

“The state government is attempting to snatch away the lands belonging to temples as well,” Vijayendra alleged and added that the teams would comprise all senior leaders of the BJP.

Meanwhile, the police have taken Sri Ram Sena chief Pramod Muthalik into custody while staging a protest march to the office of Zameer Ahmad Khan in Bengaluru.

Muthalik along with Hindutva activists was planning to lay siege to Zameer’s office over the Waqf row.

The police stopped Muthalik and requested him to submit the memorandum by reaching the minister’s office in a vehicle. However, Muthalik refused to go with the police and continued his footmarch. The police took him into custody following arguments.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
November 14,2024

Bengaluru: Karnataka Deputy Chief Minister D K Shivakumar on Thursday backed Chief Minister Siddaramaiah over his claim that the BJP had offered Rs 50 crore each to 50 Congress MLAs in an attempt to "topple" the state government.

Addressing reporters here, Shivakumar, also the Congress state president, said, “The BJP indeed lured 50 Congress MLAs with Rs 50 crore each.”

He defended Siddaramaiah’s statement and said the Congress MLAs were briefed about the BJP’s alleged 'Operation Lotus', a term used to describe the BJP's attempts to destabilise ruling governments through horse-trading.

“Some of our MLAs informed the Chief Minister about this matter, and he, in turn, shared it with the media,” Shivakumar said.

At an event in Mysuru, Siddaramaiah reiterated the claim that "none of the Congress MLAs had accepted the offer".

He also accused the BJP of filing false cases against him in a bid to "remove him and overthrow his government".

The BJP has yet to respond to the allegations.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
November 13,2024

buldozerjustice.jpg

New Delhi: The Supreme Court took a firm stance on ‘bulldozer justice’ today, affirming that the Executive cannot bypass the Judiciary and that the legal process must not prejudge the guilt of an accused. In a significant judgment, the bench led by Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan set new guidelines for demolition practices, responding to petitions challenging the controversial bulldozer actions taken against individuals accused of crimes.

The rise of this practice, termed 'bulldozer justice,' has seen authorities in various states demolish what they claim to be illegal structures belonging to accused individuals. However, multiple petitions questioned the legality and fairness of this approach, bringing the matter before the court.

Justice Gavai highlighted that owning a home is a cherished goal for many families, and an essential question was whether the Executive should have the authority to strip individuals of their shelter. “In a democracy, the rule of law protects citizens from arbitrary actions by the state. The criminal justice system must not assume guilt,” stated the bench, underscoring that due process is a fundamental right under the Constitution.

On the principle of separation of powers, the bench reinforced that the Judiciary alone holds adjudicatory powers and that the Executive cannot overstep these boundaries. Justice Gavai remarked, “When the state demolishes a home purely because its resident is accused of a crime, it violates the doctrine of separation of powers.”

The court issued a strong warning about accountability, stating that public officials who misuse their power or act arbitrarily must face consequences. Justice Gavai observed that selectively demolishing one property while ignoring similar cases suggests that the aim might be to penalize rather than enforce legality. “For most citizens, a house is the product of years of labor and dreams. Taking it away must be an action of last resort, thoroughly justified,” he said.

In its directives under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court established new demolition guidelines. These include:

Mandatory Show-Cause Notice: No demolition should occur without first issuing a show-cause notice. The person served has a minimum of 15 days or the duration stated in local laws to respond.

Transparency of Notice Content: The notice must include specifics about the alleged unauthorized construction, the nature of the violation, and the rationale for demolition.

Hearing and Final Order: Authorities are required to hear the response of the affected individual before issuing a final order. The homeowner will have 15 days to address the issue, with demolition proceeding only if no stay order is obtained from an appellate authority.

Contempt Proceedings: Any breach of these guidelines would lead to contempt proceedings. Officials who disregard these norms will be personally accountable for restitution, with costs deducted from their salaries.

Additionally, the court mandated that all municipal bodies establish digital portals within three months, displaying show-cause notices and final orders on unauthorized structures to ensure public transparency and accountability.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.