Prior attachment under PMLA had to be disclosed by parties appearing in response to the PBPT notice, and withholding that fact prevented them from later attacking the benami proceedings on the ground that there was no apprehension of alienation. The Tribunal held that, had the earlier attachment been disclosed, the Initiating Officer could have revoked the provisional attachment under section 24(3) and proceeded under the alternative attachment route in section 24(4)(b)(i). Because there was no material that the officer knew of the prior PMLA attachment, the challenge failed and the confirmed attachment under the PBPT Act was upheld; Maple Destination was distinguished as factually and statutorily different.
Prior attachment under PMLA had to be disclosed by parties appearing in response to the PBPT notice, and withholding that fact prevented them from later attacking the benami proceedings on the ground that there was no apprehension of alienation. The Tribunal held that, had the earlier attachment been disclosed, the Initiating Officer could have revoked the provisional attachment under section 24(3) and proceeded under the alternative attachment route in section 24(4)(b)(i). Because there was no material that the officer knew of the prior PMLA attachment, the challenge failed and the confirmed attachment under the PBPT Act was upheld; Maple Destination was distinguished as factually and statutorily different.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
