2023 (4) TMI 1386

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... appellant submits that the Initiating Officer of the Benami Prohibition Unit (BPU) had initiated the proceedings after applying the Benami Tansactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 (in short 'Amendment Act 2016'). The alleged benami transaction involved in this case is of the period prior to amendment. 3. The issue of the application of the Amendment Act of 2016 in regard to the Benami Transaction prior to the amendment was an issue before the Apex Court and has been decided in the case of Union of India v. Ganpati Dealcom (P.) Ltd. [2022] 177/447 ITR 108. It was also the constitutional validities of certain provisions. 4. The section 3(2) of unamended Act, 1988 so as the amended provision were declared to be unconstituti....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....is case, if the Department has a right to initiate proceedings after taking Amendment Act of 2016 to be prospective, liberty for it be given. 9. We have considered the rival submissions of the parties and perused the records. A challenge to the order of the Adjudicating Authority has been made by way of this appeal mainly with reference to the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Ganpati Dealcom (P.) Ltd. (supra). 10. On perusal of the order of the Adjudicating Authority and the notice of the Initiating Officer, it is case of alleged benami transaction prior to the date of coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2016. It could not be disputed by the respondents. In view of the above, this case is covered by the Judgment of the A....