TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 1268
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Mallick from the original land owner Mr. Pitabas Mallick, with intention to re-transfer the property for the benefit of Mr. Babu Singh in future. It was admitted by Mr. Babu Singh that Mr. Bidya Dhar Malik had not paid any consideration for transfer of the land in his name. In fact, Mr. Babu Singh paid the consideration of Rs. 56,55,000/- to the original landowner during the transfer made initially in the name of Mr. Bidya Dhar Mallick. The Initiating Officer accordingly caused notice under Section 24(1) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 (in short 'the Act of 1988) followed by the notice under Section 24(3) of the Act of 1988. The order to provisionally attach the property was caused thereupon, apprehending its alienation. On further investigation, the role of the appellant company emerged and accordingly it was shown to be the interested party. The statement of Mr. Babu Singh was recorded on 03.02.2022 under Section 19(2) of the Act of 1988 where he deposed on oath that the land transaction in the name of Mr. Bidya Dhar Mallick was at his instance and it was with the further clarification that it is not one but seven landed properties were purchase....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....BDT. Coming to the next question, it was submitted that the alleged benami transaction was effected prior to the amendment in the Act of 1988 by the PBPT Amending Act, 2016 (in short "the Amending Act of 2016"). Section 2(9)(a) could not have been effected for a transaction prior to the Amending Act of 2016. The respondent failed to take note of the aforesaid and otherwise Section 2(9)(a) is divided in two parts. It is either for a "transfer" to take place after the Amending Act of 2016 or the property "held" subsequently to the amendment. It could have been mixing the word "transfer" of property prior to the amendment of the Act of 1988 and the word "held" subsequent to the amendment to make out a case of benami transaction. In view of the above also, the Impugned Order deserves to be set aside. Coming to the facts of the case, it was submitted that Mr. Babu Singh has been considered to be beneficial owner for purchase of the land in the name of his employee being a member of Scheduled Caste (SC). The purchase of land in the name of employee would fall under the exception to Section 2(9)(A) of the Act of 1988 which saves a transaction in fiduciary capacity and thereby the pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion, it would be relevant to quote Section 2(13), Section 24(1) and Section 24(3) apart from Section 59 of the Act of 1988. All the provisions are quoted hereunder: 2. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,- (13) "Board" means the Central Board of Direct Taxes constituted under the Central Boards of Revenue Act, 1963 (54 of 1963); Notice and attachment of property involved in benami transaction. 24. (1) Where the Initiating Officer, on the basis of material in his possession, has reason to believe that any person is a benamidar in respect of a property, he may, after recording reasons in writing, issue a notice to the person to show cause within such time as may be specified in the notice why the property should not be treated as benami property. **** (3) Where the Initiating Officer is of the opinion that the person in possession of the property held benami may alienate the property during the period specified in the notice, he may, with the previous approval of the Approving Authority, by order in writing, attach provisionally the property in the manner as may be prescribed, for a period not exceeding 12c[four months]1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ties have been shown which allow them to issue appropriate directions for proper administration of the Income Tax Act and on the instructions of the CBDT, the officer would discharge the duties, thus, the direction to discharge the duties of DCIT was given by the competent Board. The government has not been clothed with the power to enter into day to day administration. The question was further raised as to whether the provisions of the Act of 1988 can be controlled by the Income Tax Act of 1961 or on the instruction of CBDT. We do not find that instructions of CBDT are offending the Act of 1988 rather the exercise of the power is in the administrative side. The Initiating Officer is defined under the Act of 1988 has been clothed with the power to cause provisional attachment of the property. The act of CBDT cannot be construed to be overriding the provisions of 1988 Act, thus, argument aforesaid cannot be accepted. The second argument raised by the appellant that a case of benami transaction under Section 2(9)(A) is not made out and otherwise the transaction took place much prior to the Amending Act of 2016. We find that initially Apex Court dealt with the issue of retrospec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Supra). It is to submit that there cannot be a continuous offence. If the offence is committed on a particular day, it ends on the same day. The arguments have been made in the ignorance of the facts in the case of Suresh Seth. If an offence is complete in all respect on a particulars day or days, then obviously the judgement in the case Suresh Seth (Supra) would apply. It would however depend on the nature of the offence and even the provision. In the instant case, the definition of "Benami Transaction" has two parts. One is on the transfer of the property and another on its holding. The use of the word "held" under section 2(9)(A)(a) is of significance and would make a transaction to be a Benami Transaction, if a person holds a property even on the date of amendment or subsequent to it of which consideration has been provided or paid by another person prior to the amendment. We have given illustration for the aforesaid to hold that if a property was transferred prior to the amendment by the Amending Act, 2016 and is not held by the transferee as on the date of the amendment, then the amended provision would not apply but after transfer of the property prior to the amendment if it....