Appellate Tribunal dismisses petitions challenging provisional attachment orders under Benami Transactions Amendment Act 2016 citing prospective application

The Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA dismissed special leave petitions challenging provisional attachment orders under the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016. Following SC precedent in Union of India v. Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal held that Sections 2(9)(A) and 2(9)(C) are substantive provisions creating benami transaction offences with significantly wider scope than the original 1988 Act. These provisions operate prospectively from the Amendment Act's effective date of 01.11.2016 and cannot apply to transactions occurring before this date. The petitions were dismissed on identical grounds despite pending review applications.

---

---

Issues:
1. Appeal filed under Section 46 of Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act against an order dated 13.08.2019.
2. Application seeking relief based on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a specific case.
3. Applicability of the 2016 Amendment Act to transactions prior to 25.10.2016.
4. Alleged benami transactions and ownership of properties.

Analysis:

1. The appeal was filed against an order passed by the Adjudicating Authority under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988. The appellant sought to quash the Impugned Order dated 13.08.2019 and the Provisional Attachment Order dated 23.07.2018. The appellant contended that the transactions in question occurred before the enforcement of the 2016 Amendment Act, and therefore, the Act cannot be applied retrospectively.

2. The respondent, in response, presented evidence from a search and seizure operation under the Income Tax Act, indicating benami property acquisitions by certain individuals. The respondent argued that the properties were purchased in the names of benamidars, with the beneficial ownership belonging to a specific group. The respondent also highlighted the lack of documentary evidence for the source of funds used in these transactions.

3. The key issue revolved around the retrospective application of the 2016 Amendment Act to transactions predating its enforcement. The appellant relied on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which declared certain provisions of the Act unconstitutional and emphasized that the Act cannot be applied retrospectively to transactions before 25.10.2016.

4. After considering the submissions from both parties and reviewing the facts of the case, the Appellate Tribunal concluded that the alleged benami transactions took place before the enforcement of the 2016 Amendment Act. Citing the relevant judgment, the Tribunal held that the Act cannot be applied retrospectively to these transactions. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the properties were released from attachment. The respondent was granted the liberty to pursue legal recourse in case of any change in the legal position.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the legal arguments, evidence presented, and the ultimate decision of the Appellate Tribunal regarding the retrospective application of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act.

---