TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 1229
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rementioned transaction was found to be Benami. Shri Satyawan Bhardwaj, the appellant herein, was held as the Benamidar. The Beneficial Owner could not be identified and hence remained unknown. 3. Briefly the facts of the case bring out that PNB had sold, through auction process, a plot of land measuring 800 sq. yds. to the Appellant for Rs. 51,30,000/-. The Appellant had deposited with the PNB a demand draft of Rs. 5,10,000/- on 21.12.2012 and cash deposit of Rs. 8,00,000/- and Rs. 38,20,000/- on 24.12.2012 and 31.12.2012 respectively. The Appellant could not get possession of the said property in view of litigation relating to another sale of the same property by its original owner to another buyer. In the meanwhile, a complaint was received from a source, whose identity could not be disclosed by the Department in view of the policy to protect the identity of such informants. On the basis of the complaint, the Department caused investigations which led them to believe that the Appellant did not hold the means to pay for property of such value and therefore, inferred that it was a Benami Transaction which was indulged in by the Appellant acting as Benamidar. 4. Ld. Authorized Re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Authority. 8. Ld. AR stated that about 10 old and non-milching buffaloes were sold to get Rs. 3,20,000/-. He claimed that pictures of cattle owned by the Appellant had been e-mailed to the IO. He contended that the price of old and non-milking cows in 2012 was Rs. 25,000 - 35,000 each. 9. The explanation offered by the Ld. AR for receipt of Rs. 12,11,000/- was the sale of ancestral land. He claimed that the land was sold to one Shri Satbir, resident of Village Mhara and was transferred to him on 26.11.2012. 10. Ld. AR submitted that certain corroborative documents which are listed in the Impugned Order from pages 52 to 55 were produced before the Ld. Adjudicating Authority. He made the argument that these documents further strengthened their case to show that the payments made by the Appellant to the PNB are well-explained. Ld. AR contended that since the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 came into effect from 01.11.2016, the provisions of the Amendment Act cannot be applied to the transaction which occurred in 2012. He contended that since the Amended Act created new offences, imposed new penalties and punishments, the same cannot be given retrospective ope....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....able. Ld. Counsel argued that it is only when the advertisement for the auction was brought to the notice of the Appellant that the alleged unknown Beneficial Owner had facilitated the making of demand draft to be deposited in PNB. Ld. Counsel further argued that it is surprising that the Appellant at such short notice could sell four vehicles he owned for Rs. 18,24,000/-. The Appellant has failed to produce any evidence to corroborate such sale. Ld. Counsel argued that the sale of the JCB and repurchase of it by the Appellant is unbelievable since the cheaper option of hiring the JCB was always available particularly so when Shri Charan Singh had to use the JCB for a year only and then re-sell it back to the Appellant. Ld. Counsel contested the claim made by the Appellant for the sale of cattle, in the absence of any documentary evidence produced by him. He further argued that the sale of the ancestral land to Shri Satbir without the backing of the documents like the title deed of the Appellant, sale deed and registration documents cannot be accepted. In fact, the Appellant in spite of having been asked did not disclose in his statement about any sale of ancestral land. His subseq....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he 2016 Act, being punitive in nature, can only be applied prospectively and not retroactively. 127.5. The authorities concerned cannot initiate or continue criminal prosecution or confiscation proceedings for transactions entered into prior to the coming into force of the 2016 Act viz. 25-10-2016. As a consequence of the above declaration, all such prosecutions or confiscation proceedings shall stand quashed. 127.6. As this Court is not concerned with the constitutionality of such independent forfeiture proceedings contemplated under the 2016 Amendment Act on the other grounds, the aforesaid questions are left open to be adjudicated in appropriate proceedings." 4 The Court has declared Section 3(2) of the unamended provisions of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act 1988 as unconstitutional for being manifestly arbitrary and as violative of Article 20(1) of the Constitution. The provisions of Section 5 of the unamended Act, prior to the Amendment of 2016, have been declared to be unconstitutional on the ground that they are manifestly arbitrary. 5 It is not disputed that there was no challenge to the constitutional validity of the unamended provisions. This i....