https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758475 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. en-us Mon, 09 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 12 Sep 2024 17:29:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758475 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. Case-Laws Benami Property Mon, 09 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758475