TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (12) TMI 620
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....22994, 22997, 22998, 22999, 23000, 23001, 23010, 23012, 23014, 23015, 23016, 23017, 23019, 23020, 23021, 23022, 23023, 23024, 23025, 23027, 23028, 23030, 23031, 23035, 23037, 23038, 23040, 23041, 23073, 23074, 23080, 23081, 23091, 23092, 23827, 23828, 23830, 23835, 23841, 23842, 23847, 23851, 23855, 23858 23861, 23862, 23927, 23928, 23929, 23931, 23934, 23935, 23943, 23944, 23946, 23947, 23948, 23950, 23961, 23963, 23964, 23966, 24802, 24874, 24878, 24915, 24933, 24937 and 24941 of 2023 Honourable Mr. Justice R. Mahadevan And Honourable Mr. Justice Mohammed Shaffiq For the Appellants : Mrs. M. Sheela Special Public Prosecutor, Income Tax in all the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals For the Respondent(s) : Mr. R. Sivaraman in all the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals COMMON JUDGMENT R. MAHADEVAN, J. These intra-court appeals are preferred by the appellants questioning the validity and correctness of the common order dated 15.12.2022 passed by the Appellate Tribunal for Benami Property Transaction Act, 1988, New Delhi in FPA-PBPT-1938/CHM/2022 etc., batch, under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Act, 1988 (Act No.43 as amended in 2016). 2. The facts and circumst....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... identity of the originator of funds and to make the identification of source of funds very convoluted. Further, on verification, it was found that 233 bank accounts were identified for these shell companies and the list of bank accounts maintained by these shell companies and their authorised signatories were found to be the employees of Marg Group of companies only. The investigation further unfolded that out of 196 shell companies, 72 companies hold 1666 acres of land even though there has been no business operations made by these companies. However, the properties were purchased in their names or its group entities, and routed through various means to make it appear as a genuine transaction such as loan or share capital to avoid detection. 2.5. It is specifically stated by the appellants that M/s. Advance Infradevelopers Private Limited has made investments for purchase of 17.702 acres of land at Muttam Village, Nagore Vattam. For purchasing this land, amounts were taken as loan from a company called M/s. Great Meera Finlease Private Limited, which has been incorporated solely for routing the funds of Marg Group of Companies. The said M/s. Great Meera Finlease Private Limite....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for its own benefit referred to a benami transaction as per the provisions of the Act. After perusing the reply submitted by the respondent along with the documentary evidence, the Adjudicating Authority by order dated 26.08.2019 concluded that the land measuring 17.702 acres at Muttam Village, Nagore Vattam is a benami property and thereby confirmed the attachment order dated 20.07.2018 passed under Section 24 (4) (b) (i) of the Act. 2.9. Assailing the order dated 26.08.2019 confirming the order of attachment of the property in question, Writ Petition Nos. 35256 of 2019 etc., batch were preferred by the respondent herein. The learned Judge, by order dated 09.04.2021, allowed the writ petitions filed by the responent(s) herein. 2.10. Aggrieved by the order dated 09.04.2021 of the learned Judge, Writ Appeal Nos. 1682 of 2021 etc., batch were filed before the Division Bench of this Court. By judgment dated 04.02.2022, the Division bench allowed the appeals preferred by the appellants and set aside the order dated 09.04.2021 of the learned Judge. 2.11. Challenging the order dated 04.02.2022 passed in Writ Appeal No. 1990 of 2021, Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 5631 of 2022,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rought to the Act with effect from 01.01.2016, the Appellate Tribunal has concluded that the proceedings for prosecution and confiscation were initiated prior to amendment brought with effect from 01.01.2016 and they are not legally sustainable. It was further held that the alleged benami transactions in this case are in relation to the period prior to the Amendment Act which was not disputed by the appellants herein. Therefore, it was held that the issue relating to the applicability of the amended provisions of the Act is squarely covered by the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Union of India and another vs. M/s. Ganpati Dealcom Private Limited [2022 SCC Online SC 1064]. As the transactions involved in this case are related to the period prior to the date of coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2016, the Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal of the respondent by relying on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Ganapati Dealcom case mentioned above. However, liberty was given to the appellants to initiate proceedings against the respondent in respect of those transactions, which had taken place after the coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2016, with pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nvolved in this case while dealing with the statutory appeals of the respondent(s). The Tribunal has allowed the appeals preferred by the respondent(s) only on technicalities without delving into the facts and circumstances that had given rise to the filing of the same. In any event, the Tribunal has clearly ignored that Section 68 of the Amended Act is pari passu to Section 8 of the Unamended Act. Therefore, by notifying the Rules under the Amended Act, the Amended Act has brought the procedural changes in the old Act, which could be otherwise permissible under the Old Act. Further, the Act was not repealed, revoked, cancelled or abolished, but several sections were removed to avoid inconsistencies and inadequacies. The Amended Act has dealt with procedural formalities wherein certain additional provisions have been incorporated for greeater clarity. Therefore, the amended provisions will not invalidate the actions resorted to by the appellants against the respondent(s) herein. 3.2. With respect to the decision rendered by the Honourable Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Ganpati Dealcom Pvt Ltd., relied on by the Tribunal, the learned Special Public Prosecutor submitted that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... interfered with. It is further submitted by the learned Special Public Prosecutor that without going into the merits of the case, the Tribunal disposed of the appeals filed by the respondent(s) herein only by placing reliance on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Ganapati Dealcom P Ltd., mentioned supra. However, it is sought to be contended on the side of the appellants that the Department has already preferred a Review Petition in Diary No. 34619 of 2022 (Review Petition No. (Civil) 359 of 2023) before the Honourable Supreme Court and it is pending adjudication. Therefore, the learned counsel prayed for allowing these appeals by setting aside the common order impugned in these appeals. 7. It is no doubt true that the Tribunal placed reliance on the decision of the Honourable Supreme court in Union of India vs. Ganapati Dealcom P Ltd., wherein, it was categorically held that 'the provisions under section 5 of the 2016 Act, being punitive in nature, can only be applied prospectively and not retrospectively', allowed the appeals filed by the respondent(s) herein by setting aside the order of the Adjudicating Authority confirmin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing Authority, Chennai [(2023) 152 taxmann.com 86 (Telangana)] and it was observed as follows: "It is submitted that the present writ petitions are covered by the common judgment delivered in Neopride Pharmaceuticals Ltd., vs. Adjuidcating Authority (W.P. No. 33191 of 2022, dated 13-09-2022) and batch which were allowed. In the said case the Court took the view that section 2 (9) (a) and 2 (9) (c) inserted by the Amendment Act, 2016 are prospective in nature because these two provisions have significantly and substantially widened the definition of 'benami transaction' than as was there in the unamended Benami Property Act of 1988. Further, taking note of the fact that Central Government had notified the date of coming into force of the Amendment Act of 2016 as 01-11-2016 this Court held that these two provisions cannot be applied to a transaction, which took place prior to 01-1102016. The Amendment Act of 2016 is not merely procedural but prescribes substantial provisions. Therefore, concerned authorities cannot initiate or continue criminal prosecution or confisctation proceedings for transactions entered into prior to coming into force of the 2016 Amendment Act ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Tribunal. It is also well settled that mere pendency of the Review Petition will not be a ground to assail the orders impugned in the appeals. In this context, it is useful to refer to the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Union Territory of Ladakh and others vs. Jammu and Kashmir National Conference and another (Civil Appeal No. 5707 of 2023 (Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 18727 of 2023 dated 06.09.2023) wherein, it was held as follows: "35. We are seeing before us judgments and orders by High Courts not deciding cases on the ground that the leading judgment of this Court on this subject is either referred to a larger Bench or a review petition relating thereto is pending. We have also come across examples of High Courts refusing deference to judgments of this Court on the score that a later Coordinate Bench has doubted its correctness. In this regard, we lay down the position in law. We make it absolutely clear that the High Courts will proceed to decide matters on the basis of the law as it stands. It is not open, unless specifically directed by this Court, to await an outcome of a reference or a review petition, as the case may be. it is also not open to....