Press Reporter News Service
Chandigarh, April 24
Deepika and Hina have been minors once they filed a petition earlier than the Punjab and Haryana Excessive Courtroom for setting apart the Revenue Tax Division’s motion of encashing their 4 mounted deposit receipts (FDRs) of Rs 20,000 every.
Practically 24 years after they moved the Excessive Courtroom, a Division Bench has upheld the motion of the authorities after terming the transaction “benami”. After listening to the matter for almost 4 months, the Bench of Justice Augustine George Masih and Justice Ashok Kumar Verma mentioned it was astonished to watch that 4 FDRs, every made in 1996, belonged to the petitioners, together with others, who weren’t even having account in any financial institution and have been dwelling in penury.
The delay within the matter could sound distinctive, however isn’t extraordinary. The Nationwide Judicial Information Grid figures reveal that the Excessive Courtroom, as of now, has greater than 6,74,250 lakh pending circumstances. It’s suspected that most of the petitioners in these circumstances aren’t any extra there to pursue their grievances. When a few of these circumstances are immediately listed, the counsels are sometimes at a loss within the absence of full information or directions.
Despite the fact that the Excessive Courtroom has been making concerted efforts to deliver down the pendency, the variety of previous pending circumstances has been piling up progressively; and with the Covid lockdown and lack of Judges, the piles are unlikely to shrink simply. The HC, as of now, has 46 Judges in opposition to the sanctioned power of 85. Two Judges are scheduled to retire this 12 months upon attaining the age of superannuation.
Taking on the matter regardless of antagonistic Covid circumstances, the Bench noticed the one moot query arising for consideration earlier than the Courtroom was whether or not the petitioners’ father/mom have been having supply of revenue for producing FDRs of big quantity of Rs 20,000 every manner again in 1996.
The pleadings of the petitioners have been “blown away” from the assertion of their very own mom and guardian recorded in January 1997 earlier than the revenue tax authorities. She clearly said neither she, nor her deceased husband, had a checking account/locker. Her husband was getting Rs 600 to Rs 700 per thirty days and so they had a hand-to-mouth existence.
The Bench added that it had no hesitation in holding that it was solely a ‘benami’ transaction made by the employer within the title of his employee-driver. It was not the petitioners’ case that their mom/father had been repeatedly submitting ITRs displaying such revenue.