AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (8) TMI 679
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed as benamidaar whereas Shri Shobaram Dhariwal was identified as beneficial owner. The brief facts given rise to the case are as under: a) One Shri Shobram Dhariwal found to have acquired various immovable properties illegally in the name of his two sons Shri Domendra Dhariwal and Shri Somendra Dhariwal and his wife Smt. Kapuri Devi Dhariwal while working in the office of Agriculture Department, Chattisgarh. b) During the course of preliminary investigation, it was found that approx. 21 acres of agricultural land near Malanpur Industrial Area on Bhind/ Gwalior road and 12 plots/ houses in Gwalior City and Rajnandgaon City were purchased till 31.03.2022 in the name of his two sons and wife having circle rate (at the time of purchase) of Rs. 4,58,04,376/-. Various movable properties were also found in the name of individuals of Dhariwal family. Fact of the matter is that many immovable properties were purchased in early 1990s, 2000s at the time when both the sons of Shobharam Dhariwal were minor. Further, during the course of investigation it was found that total of Rs. 42,94,269/- was the balance in the bank accounts in sons‟ account as on 31.03.2020. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ity for hearing to both the parties and passed a detailed impugned order where it refused to confirm the attachment of 20 properties which were at Sr. no. 1 to 19 and serial no. 29 acquired prior to 25.10.2016 and three F.D. and two bank accounts at serial no. 1 to 5 given in table A-(I)- (Moveable Property i.e. bank account deposits created in the name of Shri Domendra Dhariwal) S. No. Bank Name Account Number Type of A/c Balance (Rs.) As on 1. State Bank of India 53050972020 Savings 07.01.2020 5,41,110/- 2. State Bank of India 172735 FD 16.05.2005 1,62,984/- 3. Jila Sahakari Bank 678102014551 Savings 20.01.2022 1,90,596/- 4. Jila Sahakari Bank 57 (old) 678102043377 (New) FD 20.01.2022 4,53,912/- 5. Jila Sahakari Bank 58 (old) 678102012338 (New) FD 20.01.2022 4,66.414/- It was on the ground that three F.Ds. were opened before 25.10.2016 and at the same time, deposits in the two savings bank accounts were also prior to the aforesaid date and only interest accrued after 25.10.2016. The impugned order has been passed in ignorance of the fact that judgement of the Apex Court ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ement in the case of M/s Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) and properties No. 14 to 16 and 18 and 19 in reference to the facts of the case holding it to be not a Benami Transaction. It is made clear that the impugned order at para 5.2 records that properties mentioned at Sr. No. 1 to 13 and 17 were acquired prior to 25.10.2016, however, the factual position would reveal that properties mentioned at Sr. No. 1 to 14 were acquired prior to 25.10.2016 as given in Table-B. It is thus, stated that this Tribunal would consider the factual position as revealed from above to be correct to hold that the properties mentioned therein at Sr. 1 to 14 as given in Table-B have been acquired prior to 25.10.2016. In the case of Kapuri Devi in appeal No. 2632/23, properties which were at Sr. no. 1 to 4 given in table C were acquired prior to 25.10.2016 and properties at Sr. No. 5 and 6 were acquired after 25.10.2016. It is submitted that the adjudicating Authority failed to take proper interpretation of section 2(9)(A) of the Act of 1988, as amended by the Act of 43 of 2016 w.e.f. 01.11.2016. The provision aforesaid defines "benami transaction‟, which means that if property is transferred....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....section 2(10) of the PBPT Act, 1988. ii. Even during the period, no cash withdrawals from any of the bank accounts of Sh. Domendra Dhariwal could be observed to justify the fact i.e. payment made to purchase this property, if any, is done by Benamidar-Shri Domendra Dhariwal. iii. Shri Domendra Dhariwal also stated in his statement that he can't explain the difference between purchase consideration and Circle rate. iv. The payment of the subject property was done by Shri Shobharam Dhariwal in cash. This fact is evident from the statement of the sellers of the subject properties who have received the cash. For example-Shri Bharat Singh, the seller of immovable property has admitted in his statement recorded on oath that Shri Shobharam Dhariwal purchased the said immovable property and he got the registry of this immovable property executed in the name of his son. Shri Shobharam Dhariwal paid the amount of around Rs. 12,00,000 in cash. He further stated that Shri Shobharam Dharival visits this immovable property to supervise the agricultural activities. This statement and the facts stated therein remains valid in the absence of any contradictory finding ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he PBPT Act, 1988. iii. Shri Domendra Dhariwal stated in his statement that he can't explain the difference between purchase consideration and Circle rate. iv. Seller of this property-Shri Dinesh Singh has stated in his statement recorded on oath u/s 19 of the PBPT Act, 1988 that Shri Shobharam Dhariwal purchased the said immovable property and paid the amount of Rs. 4,50,000 in the year 2017 and Rs. 35,00,000/- in the year 2019 in cash. The sellers also admitted that Shri Shobharam Dhariwal purchased the said immovable property and he got the registry of this property executed in the name of his son. He also admitted that Shri Shobharam Dhariwal pays the amount to him for doing agricultural activities on this land. This statement and the facts stated therein remains valid in the absence of any contradictory finding before the Ld. Adjudicating Authority. v. As discussed in the financial profiles of the Beneficial Owner and the Benamidar, both have already exhausted their savings in various expenses and bank balances, hence, they are not left with any known source of income/savings in their hands. Therefore, the subject property is nothing but a 'b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e said immovable property, Sh. Shobharam Dhariwal i.e. Beneficial Owner made payment in cash of Rs. 28,00,000/- as purchase consideration and Rs. 4,57,600/- as registry expenses and got the registry executed in the name of his son. It was the Beneficial Owner who had paid Rs. 28,00,000/- as purchase consideration and Rs. 4,57,600/- as registry expenses. This statement and the facts stated therein remains valid in the absence of any contradictory finding before the Ld. Adjudicating Authority. vi. Ld. AA has erred in not considering the fact that as per the financial profile of the Beneficial Owner and the Benamidar, both have already exhausted their savings in various expenses and bank balances, hence, they are not left with any known source of income/savings in their hands. Therefore, the subject property is nothing but a 'benami property' purchased by Shri Shobharam Dhariwal from his unknown sources of income. vii. Thus, it is evident from the above statement of the seller, that the seller was paid much higher amount in cash while the registries were made on low purchase consideration in the name of the benamidar and it is also clear from the above discus....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y Shri Shobharam Dhariwal from his unknown sources of income. iv. Thus, it is evident from the above statement of the seller, that he was paid much higher amount while the registries were made on low purchase consideration in the name of the benamidar and it is also clear from the above discussion, that Beneficial Owner- Shri Shobharam was directly involved in purchase of above subject property in the name of Benamidar- Shri Domendra Dhariwal and has paid the consideration from his unknown sources of income to the sellers of the subject property (Detailed discussion is done in PAO 24(4) dated 28.04.2022) and he also manages these properties. Thus, it is evident that Shri Domendra Dhariwal is Benamidaar as per the provisions of section 2(10) of the PBPT Act, 1988 and Shri Shobharam Dhariwal is main beneficial owner as per the provisions of section 2(12) of the PBPT Act, 1988. Therefore, these transactions are clearly covered u/s 2(9)(A) of the PBPT Act, 1988. e) Properties at Sr. No. 25 (Khasra No. 1156/1): i. That for the purchase of said property, total Rs. 8,00,000/- were paid in cash in the year 2019, whereas Shri Domendra Dhariwal i.e. Benamindar/D-I ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is unknown sources of income to the sellers of the subject property (Detailed discussion is done in PAO 24(4) dated 28.04.2022) and he also manages these properties. Thus, Shri Shobharam Dhariwal is the beneficial owner as per the provisions of section 2(12) of the PBPT Act, 1988. Therefore, these transactions are clearly covered u/s sec 2(9)(A) of the PBPT Act, 1988. f) Property No. 26 (Khasra No. 1207): i. That for the purchase of said property, total Rs. 8,00,000/- were paid in cash in the year 2019, whereas Sh. Domendra Dhariwal i.e. Benamidar/D-1 was involved in a government job but his salary was meagre and was lying in the bank account during the period, which clearly shows that Sh. Domendra Dhariwal didn't have the capacity to make such huge investment in this property. Hence, it is evident that Shri Domendra Dhariwal is Benamidar as per the provisions of section 2(10) of the PBPT Act, 1988. ii. Ld. AA has erred in not appreciating the fact that Sh. Domendra Dhariwal also stated in his statement that the payment for this property was made at the rate of Circle rate and the value in the registry had been shown less. Further, he could not furnis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd was lying in the bank account during the period, which clearly shows that Sh. Domendra Dhariwal didn't have the capacity to make such huge investment in these properties. ii. Further, as per the statement of Benamidar wherein, he stated that the payment for this property was made at the rate of circle rate and value in the registry had been shown less. x. Ld. AA has erred in not considering the fact that as per the statement of the seller Sh. Dinesh Kumar, it is stated by him that it was the Beneficial Owner who had purchased the said property and got the registry of this immovable property executed in the name of his son. The Beneficial Owner had paid Rs. 4,50,000/- in the year 2017 and Rs. 35,00,000/- in the year 2019 in cash (This sum includes payment of all properties sold by Shri Dinesh Kumar). This statement and the facts stated therein remains valid in the absence of any contradictory finding before the Ld. Adjudicating Authority. Thus, we can say that the Beneficial Owner Sh. Shobharam Dhariwal was directly involved in the purchase of the subject property. iii. It is also pertinent to mention that as per the financial profile of the Benefic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ved in the purchase of the subject property. This statement and the facts stated therein remains valid in the absence of any contradictory finding before the Ld. Adjudicating Authority.It is also pertinent to mention that as per the financial profile of the Beneficial Owner and the Benamidar, both have already exhausted their savings in various expenses and bank balances, hence, they are not left with any known source of income/savings in their hands. Therefore, the subject property is nothing but a 'benami property' purchased by Shri Shobharam Dhariwal from his unknown sources of income. iv. Thus, it is evident from the above statement of the seller, that he was paid much higher amount while the registries were made on low purchase consideration in the name of the benamidar and it is also clear from the above discussion, that Beneficial Owner- Shri Shobharam was directly involved in purchase of above subject property in the name of Benamidar- Shri Domendra Dhariwal and has paid the consideration from his unknown sources of income to the sellers of the subject property (Detailed discussion is done in PAO 24(4) dated 28.04.2022) and he also manages and use these pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stify the fact i.e. payment made to purchase this property, if any, is done by Benamidar-Shri Somendra Dhariwal. iii. Shri Somendra Dhariwal had stated in his statement that he can't explain the difference between purchase consideration and Circle rate. iv. The Ld. AA erred in not considering the fact that the purchase consideration of the subject property was done by Shri Shobharam Dhariwal in cash. This fact is evident from the statement of the sellers of the subject properties who have received the cash. For example- Sh. Krushna Jatav and Sh. Ajmer Singh who did all the dealings in respect of sale of this property, the seller of immovable property have stated that Sh. Shobharam Dhariwal/Beneficial Owner purchased the said property and he got registry of this property executed in the name of his son i.e. Sh. Somendra Dhariwal/Benamidar. The amount of around Rs. 50,00,000/- in cash was paid to them by Sh. Shobharam Dhariwal/Beneficial Owner. They further stated that Shri ShobharamDharival occasionally visits this immovable property and supervises the agricultural activities. This statement and the facts stated therein remains valid in the absence of any contr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iwal is Benamidar as per the provisions of section 2(10) of the PBPT Act, 1988. ii. The Ld. AA erred in not considering the fact, no cash withdrawals upto the value of purchase consideration from any of the bank accounts of Sh. Somendra Dhariwal could be observed during that period, which clearly shows that Sh. Somendra Dhariwal didn't have the capacity to make such huge investment in these properties. iii. Seller of this property- Shri Rajveer Singh Yadav has stated in his statement recorded on oath u/s 19 of the PBPT Act, 1988 that Shri Shobharam Dhariwal paid the amount of Rs. 28,00,000 as purchase consideration and made expenditure of Rs. 4,57,600/- as registry expenses. He further admitted that Shri Shobharam Dharival supervises agricultural work on this land. This statement and the facts stated therein remains valid in the absence of any contradictory finding before the Ld. Adjudicating Authority. This fact proves that Shri Shobharam Dhariwal has paid the consideration for purchase of the property and getting benefited from it. iv. As discussed in the financial profiles of the Beneficial Owner and the Benamidar, both have already exhausted their....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... immovable property agricultural activities are being done and Shri Shobharam Dharival supervises these agricultural activities. This statement and the facts stated therein remains valid in the absence of any contradictory finding before the Ld. Adjudicating Authority. This fact proves that Shri Shobharam Dhariwal has paid the consideration for purchase of the property and getting benefited from it. iv. Ld. AA has erred in not considering the fact that as discussed in the financial profiles of the Beneficial Owner and the Benamidar, both have already exhausted their savings in various expenses and bank balances, hence, they are not left with any known source of income/savings in their hands. Therefore, the subject property is nothing but a 'benami property purchased by Shri Shobharam Dhariwal from his unknown sources of income. v. Thus, it is clear from the above statements of the sellers that Beneficial Owner- Shri Shobharam was directly involved in purchase of above subject property in the name of Benamidar- Shri Somendra Dhariwal and has paid the consideration in cash from his unknown sources of income to the sellers of the subject property (Detailed discus....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y are not left with any known source of income/savings in their hands. Therefore, the subject property is nothing but a 'benami property' purchased by Shri Shobharam Dhariwal from his unknown sources of income. iv. Thus, it is clear from the above statements of the sellers that Beneficial Owner- Shri Shobharam was directly involved in purchase of above subject property in the name of Benamidar- Shri Somendra Dhariwal and has paid the consideration in cash from his unknown sources of income to the sellers of the subject property (Detailed discussion is done in PAO 24(4) dated 28.04.2022) and he also manages these properties. Thus, Shri Shobharam Dhariwal is the beneficial owner as per the provisions of section 2(12) of the PBPT Act, 1988. It is also evident from the above statement of the sellers, that they were paid much higher amount in cash while the registries were made on low purchase consideration in the name of the benamidar. Therefore, these transactions are clearly covered u/s sec 2(9)(A) of the PBPT Act, 1988." Coming to the property purchased in the name of Kapuri Devi were excluded on the ground that both her sons and husband were working so the prope....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eficial owner. As discussed in the financial profiles of the Beneficial Owner and the Benamidar, the Benamidar has no source of income and the beneficial owner has already exhausted his savings in various expenses and bank balances, hence, they are not left with any known source of income/savings in their hands. Therefore, the subject property is nothing but a 'benami property purchased by Shri Shobharam Dhariwal from his unknown sources of income. vi. The Ld. AA erred in not considering that Sh. Shobharam Dhariwal i.e. Beneficial Owner/D-2 was directly involved in purchase of the above subject property and has paid the consideration in cash to the seller of the subject property by using his income from unknown sources. Furthermore, he is also enjoying benefits from this property by conducting agricultural activities on this land as stated by the seller of this land in his statement on oath. Thus, these actions of Shri Shobharam Dhariwal establish him as the beneficial owner as per the provisions of section 2(12) of the PBPT Act, 1988. It is also evident from the above statement of the sellers, that they were paid much higher amount in cash while the registries were ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ating Authority. This fact proves that Shri Shobharam Dhariwal has paid the consideration for purchase of the property and getting benefited from it. vii. The Ld. AA erred in not considering that Sh. Shobharam Dhariwal i.e. Beneficial Owner/D-2 was directly. involved in purchase of the above subject property and has paid the consideration in cash to the seller of the subject property by using his income from unknown sources. Further, he is also enjoying benefits from this property by conducting agricultural activities on this land as stated by the seller of this land in his statement on oath. Thus, these actions of Shri Shobharam Dhariwal establish him as the beneficial owner as per the provisions of section 2(12) of the PBPT Act, 1988. It is also evident from the above statement of the sellers, that they were paid much higher amount in cash while the registries were made on low purchase consideration in the name of the benamidar Therefore, these transactions are clearly covered u/s see 2(9)(A) of the PBPT Act, 1988. L. Rs. 2,00,096/- in bank accounts mentioned at Sr. No. 1 to 3 of Table-C(1); Account No. Type of A/c Bank name Balance as on 38958956....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the provisions of section 2(12) of the PBPT Act, 1988." The counsel for the appellant has referred to finding recorded by Adjudicating Authority showing self-contradiction therein. At the first instance, the Adjudicating Authority recorded its finding that there are investments out of unaccounted income by beneficial owner but in the later part it refuses to confirm the attachment, thus, the impugned order suffers from perversity and otherwise record contradictory finding. The order is even in conflict to provision of law and the facts available on record. The prayer was accordingly made to set aside the order for all the properties of which description has been given above and left out from confirmation despite acquisition of properties after 01.11.2016. Prayer was accordingly made to set aside the impugned order even for other properties and be made subject to outcome of the review petition pending consideration before the Apex Court in the case of Ganpati Dealcom (supra). The appeal is seriously contested by the respondent. The Counsel submitted that impugned order has been passed after consideration of factual and legal issues thus needs no interference. Referring to the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in the Act of 1988 w.e.f 01.11.2016 would not be applicable in the light of the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Ganpati Dealcom (supra). The order of the same nature has been passed even for the three F.Ds. and two savings bank accounts given in Table-A(1) said to have been opened prior to 25.10.2016. The Adjudicating authority further refused to confirm properties which were at Sr. no. 1 to4 given in Table C in the name of Kapuri Devi and properties at Sr. no. 1 to 13 and 17 in the name of Somedra Dhariwal given in Table-B on the ground that it was purchased or acquired prior to 25.10.2016 and thus, amendment in the Act of 1988 w.e.f 01.11.2016 would not be applicable in the light of the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Ganpati Dealcom (supra). It is made clear that the impugned order at para 5.2 records that properties mentioned at Sr. No. 1 to 13 and 17 were acquired prior to 25.10.2016, however, the factual position would reveal that properties mentioned at Sr. No. 1 to 14 were acquired prior to 25.10.2016 as given in Table-B. The order of the same nature has been passed even for the two F.D.s and one bank account at serial no. 1 to 3 given in Table B-(I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... No. 2632/23. Detailed description of each property has been given while referring to the argument of the counsel for the appellant Directorate and is not required to be reiterated for the reasons that even the Adjudicating Authority has recorded its finding in reference to it though it is self- contradictory. Relevant part of paras of the impugned order passed in Reference No. 182/2022 and appeal No. 2630/23 is quoted hereunder for ready reference to show not only the anomaly in the finding but perversity therein: "Analysis and Findings: 5.4 As is observed from the facts of the case, which have been discussed at previous paras, the alleged benami transactions pertaining to the aforesaid immovable properties mentioned at Sr. No. 1 to 19 and 29 and the movable properties have occurred prior to 25.10.2016, that is, the date of entry into force of the amended PBPT Act, of 2016. In view of the aforesaid Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Anr vs. M/s. Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd in SLP(C) 2784/2020 dated 23.08.2022, the Provisional Attachment Order u/s 24(4) of PBPT Act dated 31.03.2022 of the 1.0., holding the aforesaid immovable pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le. But after the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd., entire scenario has changed. In the period after 25.10.2016, both sons are earning good whereas BO had turned old and had retired in 2020. Thus, it cannot be said that Benamidars are not the beneficiaries of the investments made in their name. Rather, onus is now on IO to establish that the earning (and major) sons are not the beneficiary owner of the impugned properties. Secondly, now these alleged BDs have to their credit not only their salary/professional income but also the income from the investments like agricultural land and FDs made prior to 25.10.2016. 5.6 In the case in hand, Out of total 29 immovable properties, 20 properties (4.228 Hectares) were acquired prior to 25.10.2016 and as already dicussed, all these properties have now lost their Benami credentials. Similarly, all FDs and bank balances were made prior to 2016 in the case in hand and they are also out of the ambit of Section 2(9)(A). Thus, for the remaining properties acquired after 2016 having market value of Rs. 1,59,03,118/- (Rs. 33,30,618/- as per registered sale deed), keeping in view the ab....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce that even the father is also working in agricultural Department and earning for his family since long. Hence it cannot be said that Shri Domendra Dhariwal has no wherewithals to invest in the properties in question. The Onus is upon the IO to prove that the cash so introduced is sourced from the father which he fails to do so. The first limb of Section 2(9)(A) of the PBPT Act stands unjustified in view of the above narrated facts. Secondly, even if for an instance, it is assumed that the father has provided the consideration from his unknown sorces the second limb clearly states that the father must be reaping benefits from the properties in question. It is seen that both the Benamidar and Beneficial owner in the case in hand as well as in two other connected references were all related to each other being a joint family of father, mother, two sons, and their respective wives and that apart from Shobharam Dhariwal and his two Sons, his Daughters in Law Smt. Anita Kumari and Smt. Khyati Jain are also eaming and contributing in the family Income. It cannot be said that the father alone is reaping the benefits of the properties in question as the investment made by the fat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t of 2016 came into force on 25.10.2016 whose provisions have been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as not being applicable retrospectively. 5.5 Before proceeding further to deal the rest of the properties, one need to take a pause and cast a bird's eye view on the facts of all three related References (with wife and 2 sons as Benamidars respectively). It can be seen that Beneficial Owner is suspected of having earned unaccounted income while being in Government employment in the time period of 1977-2020 and this is reflected in the fact of having made investments to the tune of Rs. 4.58 Crores (in Immovable and movable properties) while his total accounted salary income is only Rs. 63.95 lakhs. It is evident that the ancestral agricultural land is not capable of giving any substantial agricultural income. The investment (out of unaccounted income) was made in the name of Beneficial Owners' wife and two sons who all were non-earning member till 2011 when one son, a doctor, started earning income from 2011 onwards and Second son starts getting very modest salary since 2013. From this, there is no doubt what so ever that whatever investments were made in the nam....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....seen that the IO has invoked Section 2(9)(A) of the PBPT Act for the transactions in question. Section 2(9) (A) of the PBPT Act states that: "2(9) "benami transaction" means - (A) a transaction or an arrangement- (a) where a property is transferred to, or is held by, a person, and the consideration for such property has been provided, or paid by another person, and (b) the property is held for the immediate or future benefit, direct or indirect, of the person who has provided the consideration," In view of the provisions stated u/s section 2(9)(A) of the PBPT Act, any transactions have to satisfy two limbs of it before getting the credentials of the Benami transaction i.e., a property must be held by or transferred to a person for which consideration is provided by another person and the person providing the consideration must be reaping immediate or future benefits out of it either directly or indirectly. Since the properties acquired before 25.10.2016 has lost the Benami credentials due to the judgement of Apex Court in Ganapati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. though held by the IO as Benami in his PAO, the only question left is to test the properti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on for invoking Sections 2(9)(A) of the PBPT Act in order to hold the transactions in question as benami transactions under the provisions of the PBPT Act. Considering the facts & circumstances of the case I disagree with the findings of the 10 to hold the properties is question mentioned in Table-B and B (1) at Para 2.4 of this Order as Benami Properties u/s 2(8) of the PBPT Act. The provisional attachment of the properties in question is revoked." The relevant part of the impugned order passed in Reference No. 184/2022 and appeal No. 2632/23 are quoted hereunder for ready reference to show not only the anomaly in the finding but perversity therein: "Analysis and Findings: 5.4 As is observed from the facts of the case, which have been discussed at previous paras, the alleged benami transactions pertaining to the aforesaid immovable properties mentioned at Sr. No. 1 to 04 have occurred prior to 25.10.2016, that is, the date of entry into force of the amended PBPT Act, of 2016. In view of the aforesaid Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Anr. vs. M/s. Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd in SLP(C) 2784/2020 dated 23.08.2022, the Provisi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted income of B.O.) exemption to Section 2(9)(A) was also not applicable. But after the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd., entire scenario has changed. In the period after 25.10.2016, both sons are earning good whereas BO had turned old and had retired in 2020. Thus, it cannot be said that Benamidars are not the beneficiaries of the investments made in their name. Rather, onus is now on IO to establish that the earning (and major) sons are not the beneficiary owner of the impugned properties. Secondly, now these alleged BDs have to their credit not only their salary/professional income but also the income from the investments like agricultural land and FDs made prior to 25.10.2016. 5.6 In the case in hand, Out of total 06 immovable properties, 4 properties (0.551 Hectares) were acquired prior to 25.10.2016 and as already discussed, all these properties have now lost their Benami credentials and are therefore out of the ambit of Section 2(9)(A). Thus, for the remaining properties acquired after 2016 amounting Rs. 55,35,096/-, {immovable properties having market value of Rs. 53,35,000/- (Rs. 7,96,775/- as per registered ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tail. It is further seen from the Reference that even his husband is also working in agricultural Department and earning for her and family since long. Hence it cannot be said that Smt. Kapuri Devi Dhariwal has no wherewithals to invest in the properties in question. The Onus is upon the IO to prove that the cash so introduced is sourced from the husband which he fails to do so. The first limb of Section 2(9)(A) of the PBPT Act stands unjustified in view of the above narrated facts. Secondly, even if for an instance, it is assumed that the husband has provided the consideration from his unknown sources the second limb clearly states that the husband must be reaping benefits from the properties in question. It is seen that both the Benamidar and Beneficial owner in the case in hand as well as in two other connected references were all related to each other being a joint family of father, mother, two sons and their respective wives and that apart from her husband and her two sons, her daughters in Law Smt. Anita Kumari and Smt. Khyati Jain are also earning and contributing in the family Income. It cannot be said that the husband alone is reaping the benefits of the propertie....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... referred earlier. The finding has been recorded even going against the definition of "benami transaction" given under section 2(9)(A) despite satisfaction of both the limbs of the definition. It was a case where the property was transferred or held by a person of which consideration was provided or paid by another person. It is the case where wife and sons were not having sufficient means to acquire properties of the value given by the appellant and also that acquisition of property was for immediate or future benefit of the persons who provided consideration i.e. the father. It was found that the appellant Shobharam Dhariwal while in service could earn an amount of Rs. 63,95,140/- towards salary and if no part of it has been spent on the livelihood, he could not have acquired the property in name of his wife and son worth of Rs. 4 crore, 58 lacs and odd. Detailed description income of each appellant is given as under: Sl. No. Name of the person (Shri/ Smt.) Total earning till F.Y. 2019-20 Income earned lying as bank balance as on 31.03.2020 Day to day expenses @ 30% of total earning Savings left for investment till F.Y. 2019-20 1. Shobhram Dhariwal 6....