Benami transaction and provisional attachment dispute over bank accounts; statutory benami elements unmet, appeal dismissed.

Issue concerned whether statutory requirements for a benami transaction and provisional attachment under the PBPT Act, 1988 were satisfied. The IO failed to identify an original benami property transferred to a nominee company for the immediate or future benefit of the alleged beneficial owner group, and treating bank balances as "equivalent value" was rejected as not recognised under the statutory scheme; consequence: the provisional attachment was infirm. Reliance on Income Tax investigations without independent inquiry under the PBPT Act was inadequate, and invoking the PBPT Act to police regulatory or fiscal breaches was inappropriate; consequence: no case under section 2(9)(A) was made and the appeal was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Initiating Officer discharged the statutory burden under Section 2(9)(A) read with Sections 23 and 24 of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 to establish that M/s Surge Ahead Solutions Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Bajaj Capital Insurance Broking Ltd. are respectively the benamidar and beneficial owner and that the attached bank accounts are benami properties.

Analysis: The statutory definition of benami transaction requires (a) property held by one person, (b) consideration provided by another, and (c) the property held for the immediate or future benefit of the person providing consideration. The material on record showed operational and managerial links between the entities, shared premises and employees, centralized payroll functions, and transfers from Surge to group companies; however, suspicion or regulatory/tax irregularities alone do not satisfy the statutory ingredients of Section 2(9)(A). The Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions statutory scheme requires identification of specific property acquired or held in the name of the putative benamidar with consideration traceable to the alleged beneficial owner and proof of holding for the beneficial owners present or future benefit. The attachment order suffered from infirmities: the Initiating Officer did not identify an original benami property or traceable proceeds, treated bank balances as "equivalent value" contrary to the statutory scheme, and attached accounts some of which were closed prior to the attachment order. The Initiating Officer also largely relied on external investigations without conducting an independent inquiry required under the PBPT Act. These deficiencies meant the Initiating Officer failed to satisfy the statutory burden necessary to establish a benami transaction.

Conclusion: The Initiating Officer failed to discharge the burden under Section 2(9)(A) read with Sections 23 and 24 of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988; the attached bank accounts are not benami properties and the Adjudicating Authority's revocation of the attachment is upheld, favouring the respondents.

---