https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780926 AT dismissed the two appeals, upholding the Provisional Attachment Orders and Adjudicating Authority's orders as valid and within the one-year limitation under s.26(7) PBPTA. The Approving Authority independently reviewed evidence; alleged procedural flaws were deemed speculative. Cash payments and unexplained bank deposits-without corroborative ITRs or credible explanation-supported inference of non-agricultural funds. The appellant failed to prove who furnished consideration for the two property purchases, and attempts to mask cash payments via bank deposits were rejected. Appeals therefore dismissed. en-us Wed, 29 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 08 Nov 2025 08:30:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780926 AT dismissed the two appeals, upholding the Provisional Attachment Orders and Adjudicating Authority's orders as valid and within the one-year limitation under s.26(7) PBPTA. The Approving Authority independently reviewed evidence; alleged procedural flaws were deemed speculative. Cash payments and unexplained bank deposits-without corroborative ITRs or credible explanation-supported inference of non-agricultural funds. The appellant failed to prove who furnished consideration for the two property purchases, and attempts to mask cash payments via bank deposits were rejected. Appeals therefore dismissed. Case-Laws Benami Property Wed, 29 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780926