https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=92835 The AT upheld that statements recorded under s.19(1) of the Act of 1988, taken on oath, were admissible; the appellant (A) failed to establish provenance of cash recovered from him, disowned it at seizure, and later attributed it to B, who denied knowledge, leaving the beneficial owner unknown. Proceedings under s.2(9)(c) were correctly instituted and the Adjudicating Authority's benami finding was sustained. The Tribunal noted uncertainties regarding any subsequent Income-tax assessment but found no merit to disturb the impugned orders. The appeal is dismissed, with the contested cash treated as undisclosed/benami property and the appellant's challenge rejected. en-us Thu, 25 Sep 2025 08:37:32 +0530 Thu, 25 Sep 2025 08:37:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=92835 The AT upheld that statements recorded under s.19(1) of the Act of 1988, taken on oath, were admissible; the appellant (A) failed to establish provenance of cash recovered from him, disowned it at seizure, and later attributed it to B, who denied knowledge, leaving the beneficial owner unknown. Proceedings under s.2(9)(c) were correctly instituted and the Adjudicating Authority's benami finding was sustained. The Tribunal noted uncertainties regarding any subsequent Income-tax assessment but found no merit to disturb the impugned orders. The appeal is dismissed, with the contested cash treated as undisclosed/benami property and the appellant's challenge rejected. Highlights Benami Property Thu, 25 Sep 2025 08:37:32 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=92835