TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 263
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aipur, had made a Reference numbered as R-0210/PBPT/DLI/2022 dated 05.07.2022 to the Adjudicating Authority along with a Provisional Attachment Order (PAO) dated 28.06.2022. 3. The case of the IO is that Sh. Sanjay Sancheti had conspired for purchasing lands situated at Mandir Hasaud, Tehsil- Arang, District: Raipur (total area 1.516 Hectares) in the name of Sh. Bhikam Chand Chandak. During investigation, bank account statement of Sh. Bhikam Chand Chandak maintained at Punjab & Sindh Bank, Raipur Branch was called for. It was followed by summon to Sh. Bhikham Chand Chandak by the IO on 24.02.2022. His statement was recorded on oath wherein he disclosed his source of income to be out of salary in the range of Rs. 7,000/- to Rs. 15,000/- till 2017. It was also admitted that he did not have the actual possession of the lands and even the original sale deed. According to him, both things are under the control of Sh. Sanjay Sancheti. He further admitted that consideration to be paid in cheques for the subject properties/lands registered in his name had never been encashed. The scrutiny of the bank account statements of Sh. Bhikham Chand Chandak revealed that while the two sale deeds ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in PBPT Act,1988, the IO could not have invoked section 2(9) of the PBPTA, 1988 in the view of the judgment (supra). 7. It was also argued that Sh. Bhikam Chand Chandak cannot be treated as benamidar in respect of the subject movable properties namely the two bank accounts held at State Banck of India (A/c No. 10822771601) and Jila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit (A/c no. 624003026592) which are admittedly owned, and operated by the appellant Sh. Sanjay Sancheti. It was argued that under the scheme of the PBPT Act, 1988, a property can be held as "benami property" only when it stands in the name of the alleged benamidar while the consideration is provided by another person for his benefit. In the present case, the alleged 'benami property' i.e. the bank accounts are not held in the name of the benamidar, Sh. Bhikam Chand Chandak, negating the essential ingredient of a benami transaction. Consequently, Sh. Bhikam Chand Chandak cannot be held as a benamidar in respect of the movable properties. 8. It was also submitted that the IO failed to consider that the subsequent transactions in the bank account executed by the Sh. Sanjay Sancheti were under the General Power of Attorney....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of Smt. Pamela Bhardwaj and Sh. Ramneek Singh Vs Initiating Officer, BPU Circle 1(1) dated 21.06.2019. 11. It is submitted that the IO passed the attachment orders u/s. 24(4)(b)(i) of the PBPTA, 1988 without complying the procedure for attachment of the subject properties as prescribed in the PBPTA, 1988 and rule 5 of the PBPT rules, 2016. 12. On behalf of the appellant Sh. Bikram Chand Chandak, it was argued that the property in question was legally purchased through two registered sale deeds dated 07.05.2018 and 17.06.2020. There is no proof that the consideration was paid by the alleged Beneficial Owner. It was also submitted that around May 2018, the landowner, Shri Sushil Pagariya, was unable to sell the subject property on his own. The prospective buyers either showed no interest or sought to exploit his financial distress therefore he sought assistance of a land broker, Sh. Bhikam Chand Chandak. It was mutually agreed that Sh. Bhikam Chand Chandak would facilitate resale of the property, subject to the title being first transferred in his name to assure prospective purchasers of a risk-free transaction. It was further agreed that the property would be acquired on credi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ansaction involving the appellant, Sh. Sanjay Sancheti, who arranged a loan for Sh. Sushil Pagariya in the year 2015-2016. The IO claimed that the loan constituted the consideration for the purchase of the subject properties on behalf of the Sh. Sanjay Sancheti. However, since, alleged consideration was paid prior to 1.11.2016 thus no proceedings could have been launched under the PBPTA, 1988 for any transaction prior to 01.11.2016 in the light of the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Union of India vs. M/s Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. (supra). We have considered the argument and find that the judgement supra has been recalled by the order of the apex court vide its order dated 18.10.2024, it is otherwise a fact that the definition of 'benami transaction' under section 2(9)(A) of the PBPTA, 1988 envisages not only 'transfer' of property but also the 'holding' of property, meaning thereby that if someone is holding property subsequent to the amendment of 2016, it would be covered by the Amending Act of 2016 provided all the other conditions are satisfied. This Tribunal has reiterated the same in its judgement of M/s. Prism Scan Express Pvt. Ltd in appeal no. FPA-PBPT-107....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....6, but it is still held by the benamidar even subsequent to the amendment, it would be a "benami transaction" under the Amending Act, 2016." In the light of above, we don't find any merit on the aforesaid issue raised by the appellants. 17. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant also argued that movable properties i.e. the bank accounts in the name of the appellant Sh. Sanjay Sancheti were attached without any tangible material brought on record. Moreover, since the bank accounts are in name of the alleged beneficial owner and not the benamidar, the basic condition for the properties to be termed as 'benami' is not satisfied as the subject movable properties were owned, held and operated by the beneficial owner only. It is true that the bank accounts were in the name of Sh. Sanjay Sancheti, the alleged beneficial owner and not the in the name of Sh. Bhikam Chand Chandak, the alleged benamidar. However, the facts of the case reveal that the lands under question were acquired in the name of Sh. Bhikam Chand and some portion was sold for a consideration of Rs. 23,84,875/-. Since, the entire land was held to be 'benami' u/s. 2(8) of PBPT Act, 1988, that amount so received in lieu o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pository or a participant as an agent of a depository under the Depositories Act, 1996 (22 of 1996) and any other person as may be notified by the Central Government for this purpose;" The bare perusal of the above clause shows that use of the word "and" gives it an inclusive definition. The clause can be read into two parts. The first part refers to a person who holds or manages the property in trust and confidence not for their own benefit but solely for the benefit of another person, the second part specifies the list of persons covered under fiduciary capacity. The first part of the clause is required to be given an interpretation to fulfill the purpose of the statue as otherwise the very purpose of the Act would be defeated. Notably, sub-clause (ii) is inclusive. Some instances of such fiduciary capacity are specifically mentioned in the sub-clause which include a trustee, an executor, a partner, a director of a company, a depository or a participant as an agent of a depository under the Depositories Act, 1996 (22 of FPA-PBPT-2584, 2590/RP/2023 Page 22 of 34 1996) as well as any other person as may be notified by the Central Government for this purpose. The definition is....