2026 (2) TMI 1174 - AT - Benami Property

Benami property verification: insufficient hallmark and invoice evidence defeated provisional attachment, leading to relief for the proprietor.

Whether seized jewellery constituted benami property turned on evidential verification: inspection against invoices, hallmarks and seller records ... Benami Property - Provisional Attachment - Confirmation of Provisional Attachment - Identification and verification of seized property - Proof of provenance and effect on benami finding - HELD THAT:- It is clear that the seized Jewelleries were not being held as Benami by the alleged Benamidar Smt. Ranjana Roy. Even for the four items of Jewellery the subsequent submissions made by the Appellant do not appear to be afterthought. Her submissions that these Jewelleries were obtained from her own sources of funds appear to be correct. We also observe that Shri Animesh Banerjee had disclosed subsequently the entire Jewellery purchased from M/s SENCO Gold showroom under Pradhan Mantri Gareeb Kalyan Yojana, 2016. Appellant pleaded that Shri Animesh Banerjee made aggregate disclosure of Rs. 2,47,00,000/- [Rs. 60,62,191/- held in cash + Bank balance of Rs. 1,86,37,809/- received from sale of entire Jewellery purchased from M/s Senco Gold showroom at Gariahat under the PMGKY, 2016 and the same has been accepted by the Income Tax Department. In the light of the Verification Report, we are unable to sustain the attachment of the seized Jewellery under PBPTA as Benami Property. Thus, we set aside the Impugned Order. The Appeal filed by Smt. Ranjana Roy is therefore allowed Issues: Whether the provisional attachment of jewellery seized from the appellant under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Act, 1988 is sustainable as benami property.Analysis: The matter was examined by verifying the seized jewellery against invoices, hallmarks and the records of M/s Senco Gold Limited through an inspection in the presence of the appellant, witnesses and a Senco representative. The inspection identified only four items as traceable to Senco Gold Ltd. by hallmark and internal sale records; the balance of the jewellery was found to be personal and not identifiable from Senco records. The appellant furnished invoices and photographs which were acknowledged during the verification. The identified beneficial owner had made subsequent disclosures under the Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Yojana, 2016. In light of the verification findings and documentary corroboration, the material produced by the Initiating Officer was insufficient to sustain that the seized jewellery was benami property.Conclusion: The provisional attachment of the seized jewellery under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Act, 1988 is not sustainable; the impugned order confirming the attachment is set aside and the appeal is allowed in favour of the appellant.