https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778933 AT held that statements recorded under s.19(1) of the Act of 1988, taken on oath at seizure, were admissible. The appellant failed to establish ownership or disclose the source of recovered cash; the person later identified disclaimed knowledge, leaving the beneficial owner unknown. The Adjudicating Authority's benami finding and consequent proceedings under s.2(9)(c) were upheld. Questions about any subsequent income-tax assessment were left unexplored by the AT. The appeal was found without merit and dismissed. en-us Mon, 28 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 25 Sep 2025 08:37:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778933 AT held that statements recorded under s.19(1) of the Act of 1988, taken on oath at seizure, were admissible. The appellant failed to establish ownership or disclose the source of recovered cash; the person later identified disclaimed knowledge, leaving the beneficial owner unknown. The Adjudicating Authority's benami finding and consequent proceedings under s.2(9)(c) were upheld. Questions about any subsequent income-tax assessment were left unexplored by the AT. The appeal was found without merit and dismissed. Case-Laws Benami Property Mon, 28 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778933