Companies fail to prove legitimate investment sources, benami property attachment upheld under Prohibition Act

The Appellate Tribunal for SAFEMA at New Delhi upheld the Provisional Attachment Order under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act. Two appellant companies failed to prove legitimate financial sources for their investments in shares after 2013-14, operating as mere paper companies with no business activities. The tribunal found that control over these companies was acquired in 2014-15 with finances infused by a promoter for benami transactions. Despite share transfers occurring before the 2016 amendment, the continued holding of shares post-amendment fell within the benami transaction definition. The tribunal rejected arguments regarding procedural violations and confirmed the attachment was properly executed following applicable rules.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Constitutionality and applicability of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, and its 2016 Amendment.
2. Definition and interpretation of "Benami Transaction" under the amended Act.
3. Evidence and proof of Benami transactions in the hands of the appellant companies.
4. Alleged violation of principles of natural justice and procedural lapses in the attachment process.
5. Impact of income tax assessments on the determination of Benami transactions.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Constitutionality and Applicability of the Act:

The appeals challenge the order confirming the provisional attachment under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, as amended in 2016. The appellants argued that the transactions in question occurred before the 2016 amendment, invoking the Supreme Court judgment in Ganpati Dealcom Private Limited, which declared certain provisions of the unamended Act unconstitutional and held that the 2016 amendment could not apply retrospectively. The Tribunal, however, noted that the transactions continued to be held after the amendment, thus falling within the scope of the amended Act.

2. Definition and Interpretation of "Benami Transaction":

The Tribunal focused on the definition of "Benami Transaction" under Section 2(9) of the 2016 Amendment, which includes both the transfer and holding of property where consideration is paid by another person. The Tribunal emphasized that the term "held" is crucial, meaning that if a property is held by a person after the amendment, it falls under the definition of a Benami transaction, regardless of when the transfer occurred.

3. Evidence and Proof of Benami Transactions:

The Tribunal found substantial evidence supporting the conclusion that the appellant companies were involved in Benami transactions. The directors of the companies lacked knowledge of business activities and admitted to acting on instructions, indicating they were 'dummy' directors. The Tribunal noted that funds were infused into the companies through share capital at high premiums from paper companies with no business activities, linking the transactions to the appellant Suresh Bhageria.

4. Alleged Violation of Principles of Natural Justice and Procedural Lapses:

The appellants alleged procedural lapses, including the failure to provide reasons to believe under Section 24(1) and non-compliance with Rule 5 of the Benami Rules, 2016. The Tribunal found these claims unsubstantiated, noting that the reasons to believe were provided and the attachment process followed the prescribed rules.

5. Impact of Income Tax Assessments:

The appellants argued that since the income tax authorities assessed the funds, the transactions should not be questioned. The Tribunal dismissed this argument, clarifying that income tax assessments focus on income and tax compliance, not the legality of the transactions under the Benami Act. The Tribunal maintained that the assessment does not regularize Benami transactions.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal concluded that the appeals lacked merit, affirming the provisional attachment orders. It held that the transactions fell under the amended definition of Benami transactions due to the continued holding of shares post-amendment and dismissed the appeals, validating the actions taken under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, as amended in 2016.

---