Limited grounds for review under Prohibition of Benami Act; without mistake or new evidence, voiding of IDS certificates denied.

Reviewability under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act is confined to mistake apparent on the record, discovery of new and important evidence previously unavailable with due diligence, or analogous reasons; the batch of review petitions failed these tests and were dismissed. A certificate under the Income Declaration Scheme, 2016 cannot be treated as void absent a statutory power to nullify it and where the purported impugning order showed procedural infirmity. A retracted statement, without independent corroborative financial records, is insufficient to establish cash deposits/rotation or to support provisional attachment or a benami finding.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the batch of review petitions under Section 47 of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 satisfy limited grounds for review (mistake apparent on face of record, discovery of new evidence or any other sufficient reason) so as to set aside the Tribunal's earlier order; (ii) Whether the declaration made under the Income Declaration Scheme, 2016 (certified by the Principal Commissioner and tax paid) was nullified by the Assessing Authority such that the certificate can be treated as void; (iii) Whether the statement of Yogendra Raj Singhvi, including his subsequent retraction, constituted admissible and corroborative evidence to establish deposit/rotation of cash and thereby a benami transaction.

Issue (i): Whether the review petitions disclose grounds sufficient for review under the limited jurisdiction applicable to review applications.

Analysis: The Tribunal applied the settled tests for review (mistake apparent on the face of the record; discovery of new and important evidence; any other sufficient reason analogous to these grounds) as explained in the Supreme Court authority. The petitioners did not demonstrate a manifest error on the face of the record, nor did they produce new evidence that was previously unavailable despite due diligence. The Tribunal examined the factual basis relied upon by the review applicants and found no foundational factual error needing correction.

Conclusion: Review dismissed; no ground for review is made out.

Issue (ii): Whether the Assessing Authority validly nullified the certificate issued under the Income Declaration Scheme, 2016 thereby rendering the declaration void and affecting the Tribunal's prior decision.

Analysis: The Tribunal required the review applicants to identify any scheme provision empowering the Assessing Authority to nullify a certificate issued under the Income Declaration Scheme, 2016. No such provision was shown. The valuation was certified by a registered valuer and not credibly impeached. The Assessing Authority's order purportedly treating the declaration as forged lacked evidence of hearing and did not set out sufficient grounds; thus it suffered from procedural infirmity and could not be relied upon to overturn the certified declaration for purposes of establishing benami transactions.

Conclusion: The contention that the declaration/certificate is void is rejected; no basis shown to treat the declaration as null and void.

Issue (iii): Whether the statement of Yogendra Raj Singhvi, despite retraction, furnished the necessary corroborative evidence of cash deposits/rotation to sustain a finding of benami transaction and provisional attachment.

Analysis: The Tribunal noted that the allegation of cash deposits and rotation required foundational proof such as bank statements. The review applicants relied principally on the recorded statement of Yogendra Raj Singhvi which was promptly retracted. The respondents had not produced independent corroborative financial records (bank statements or equivalent) establishing deposit of cash by the noticees. The retracted statement, without corroboration, was insufficient to discharge the onus of proof required to sustain provisional attachment or a benami finding.

Conclusion: The statement, being retracted and uncorroborated, does not support a case for benami transaction or warrant review.

Final Conclusion: The review applications do not disclose any manifest error, new material fact, or other sufficient reason warranting interference with the Tribunal's earlier order; accordingly all review petitions are dismissed and the Tribunal's prior decision stands.

Ratio Decidendi: Review under Section 47 of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 is permissible only on limited grounds-mistake apparent on the face of the record, discovery of new and important evidence previously unavailable with due diligence, or other reasons analogous thereto-and absent such grounds (including absence of corroborative foundational evidence for alleged cash deposits), review must be denied.

---