Appellate Tribunal upholds benami transaction attachment order under section 26(7) despite insufficient evidence claims

The Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA dismissed the appeal challenging benami transaction proceedings. The appellant argued insufficient evidence linked them to currency seized from another person, but the Tribunal found their filing of the appeal itself demonstrated interest in the seized amount. The Tribunal rejected arguments regarding delayed statement recording, finding no statutory time limit requirement. The adjudication order was passed within the mandatory one-year period from receipt of reference under section 26(7). Proper notice procedures were followed under section 24(2), with copy served to the beneficial owner. Required approval under section 24(4)(A)(i) was obtained from the Competent Authority. The Tribunal upheld the attachment order based on available evidence and proper procedural compliance.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the appellant was the beneficial owner of the currency seized from Bikky Kumar Singh.
2. Validity of the impugned order based on the delay in recording the statement under section 19(1)(b) of the Act of 1988.
3. Compliance with section 26(7) of the Act of 1988 regarding the time limit for passing the order.
4. Issuance of show cause notice under section 24(2) of the Act of 1988.
5. Approval under section 24(4)(A)(i) of the Act of 1988.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Beneficial Ownership of the Currency:
The appellant argued that no evidence was produced to prove that he was the beneficial owner of the currency seized from Bikky Kumar Singh. The Adjudicating Authority relied on the statements of Bikky Kumar Singh, recorded under section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act and section 19(1)(b) of the Act of 1988, which named the appellant as the person who provided the currency for delivery. The Tribunal found that the statements were consistent and corroborated by other evidence, such as the mobile numbers and the appellant's involvement in arranging the railway ticket. The Tribunal dismissed the appellant's claim, stating that the material on record was sufficient to establish the appellant's beneficial ownership.

2. Delay in Recording the Statement:
The appellant contended that the statement under section 19(1)(b) of the Act of 1988 was recorded almost eleven months after the initial statement under section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal noted that there is no statutory provision mandating a specific period within which the statement must be recorded. The Tribunal found no variance between the two statements and dismissed the argument, stating that the delay did not affect the validity of the statements.

3. Compliance with Section 26(7):
The appellant argued that the impugned order was passed beyond the one-year period stipulated in section 26(7) of the Act of 1988. The Tribunal clarified that the one-year period is calculated from the end of the month in which the reference was received, not the date of the reference. The reference dated 26.03.2018 was received in April 2018, and the impugned order was passed within one year from the end of that month. The Tribunal found that the order was passed within the stipulated period and dismissed this argument.

4. Issuance of Show Cause Notice:
The appellant claimed that the show cause notice was not issued in his name, violating section 24(2) of the Act of 1988. The Tribunal referred to the provision, which requires a copy of the notice to be issued to the beneficial owner if their identity is known. The Tribunal found that a copy of the notice was indeed sent to the appellant, and he had acknowledged receipt and responded to it. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed this argument, finding compliance with section 24(2).

5. Approval under Section 24(4)(A)(i):
The appellant alleged that the respondents failed to produce the approval of the order under section 24(4)(A)(i) of the Act of 1988. The Tribunal found that the approval was granted by the Competent Authority and was part of the record. The respondents were directed to place the order of approval on record, which was done. The Tribunal concluded that the compliance with section 24(4)(A)(i) was met and dismissed this argument.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal found no merit in any of the issues raised by the appellant. The appeal was dismissed, and the impugned order was upheld.

---