Benami property transactions and retrospective application of amendment rejected; Supreme Court precedent governs, tribunal order upheld.

Initiating Officer had reason to believe funds routed through multiple shell companies were benami proceeds reinvested in immovable property, invoking the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions framework; the High Court accepted that finding. The court held that the amended law's provision on retrospective application cannot be read to apply retrospectively because binding Supreme Court authority in Union of India v. Ganapati Dealcom governs the issue, and pendency of a departmental review petition of that decision does not justify disturbing the tribunal's order. Consequence: the tribunal's order stands and the amended provision is not applied retrospectively in this matter.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity and correctness of the common order dated 15.12.2022 by the Appellate Tribunal for Benami Property Transaction Act, 1988.
2. Applicability of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 as amended in 2016 to transactions prior to the amendment.
3. Procedural adherence and burden of proof in benami transactions.
4. Prospective vs. retrospective application of the Amended Act, 2016.

Summary:

1. Validity and Correctness of the Common Order:
The appellants questioned the common order dated 15.12.2022 by the Appellate Tribunal for Benami Property Transaction Act, 1988, which dealt with the applicability of the Amended Act, 2016. The Tribunal concluded that proceedings for prosecution and confiscation initiated prior to the amendment were not legally sustainable, citing the Supreme Court decision in Union of India vs. M/s. Ganpati Dealcom Private Limited.

2. Applicability of the Amended Act to Prior Transactions:
The Tribunal, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Ganpati Dealcom, held that the amended provisions of the Act, being punitive, could only be applied prospectively. The transactions in question occurred before the amendment date (01.01.2016), and thus, the Tribunal allowed the appeals, stating that the proceedings initiated under the amended provisions were not sustainable.

3. Procedural Adherence and Burden of Proof:
The appellants argued that the Tribunal failed to consider the unique facts of the case and the procedural adherence required under the statute. They contended that the burden of proof regarding benami transactions lies with the appellants, as established in Valliammal vs. Subramaniam. The Tribunal did not delve into the factual matrix and allowed the appeals on technical grounds.

4. Prospective vs. Retrospective Application:
The Tribunal observed that the amendments brought by the 2016 Act were substantive and not merely procedural. Therefore, the punitive provisions under Section 5 of the 2016 Act could not be applied retrospectively. This view was supported by the Telangana High Court in Nutrient Marine Foods Ltd. vs. Adjudicating Authority, Chennai, and upheld by the Supreme Court in Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Nutrient Marine Foods Limited.

Conclusion:
The High Court found no reason to interfere with the Tribunal's order, which was based on the Supreme Court's decision in Ganpati Dealcom. The appellants were granted liberty to proceed further based on the outcome of the pending review petition before the Supreme Court. All Civil Miscellaneous Appeals were disposed of without costs.

---