TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (1) TMI 1816
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing Authority in Reference No.R-885/2018. The Impugned Order confirmed the Provisional Attachment Order (PAO) dated 28.05.2018, under Section 24 (4) (b) (i) of the PBPTA passed by the Initiating Officer (IO) of the BPU, Hyderabad. 2. We note the following relevant details of the case: Reference No: 885/2018 Benamidar: Sarda Devi Beneficial owner: Rachakonda Srinivas Interested Party: ICON Construction Transaction amount: Rs. 9,00,000/- paid out of sale consideration of Rs. 70,77,000/-. 3. Ld. Counsel for the Appellants informed that the IO and Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Benami Prohibition), Hyderabad, filed Reference no. 885/2018 before the Ld. Adjudicating Authority on 08.06.2018 concerning Smt. Sarada Devi (Benamidar), Sh. Rachakonda Srinivas Rao (Beneficial Owner) and M/s ICON Construction (Interested Party) following the Provisional Attachment Order (PAO) dated 28.05.2018. The property with description as "Commercial unit bearing Shop no. 5 Ground Floor admeasuring 1011sq. ft. of built-up area with 2 car parking along with an undivided share of 43 sq. yards out of a total extent of 2608 sq. yards, bearing H. No. 1-7-392....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ot applicable to this case as the agreement of sale for the purchase of the impugned property was executed on 27.10.2016 with all future benefits accruing to the prospective buyers only upon completion of construction and transfer of title. The agreement to sale was not finally executed and converted in the form of sale, till date. Since the amended PBPTA came into force only from 1st November 2016, hence, there is no scope for retrospective application of the punitive law. Ld. Counsels also contended that the alleged Benamidar directly entered in an Agreement of Sale with M/s ICON Constructions to purchase the property for which requisite consideration was paid from own sources through proper and valid banking channels. Ld. Counsel for Shri Rachakonda, the BO, submitted that the alleged Benamidar entered into direct agreement to sale with M/s ICON Constructions to purchase the impugned property for an agreed consideration. Ld. Counsel for M/s ICON Constructions further submitted that mere agreement to sell does not confer title on property. Since the alleged Benamidar has not paid the entire sale consideration, title has not been transferred to the said purchaser. Section 54 of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Provisional Attachment of the impugned property. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent prayed for dismissal of the Appeals. 9. We have considered the rival submissions and the material on record. It is an admitted fact that only partial payment has been made by the alleged Benamidar to the interested party M/s ICON Constructions. The partial payment was made on signing of Agreement of Sale. Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 is reproduced below: - Section 54. "Sale" defined. - "Sale" is a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised or part-paid and part-promised. Sale how made. - Such transfer, in the case of tangible immoveable property of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, or in the case of a reversion or other intangible thing, can be made only by a registered instrument. In the case of tangible immoveable property of a value less than one hundred rupees, such transfer may be made either by a registered instrument or by delivery of the property. Delivery of tangible immoveable property takes place when the seller places the buyer, or such person as he directs, in possession of the prop....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in the land gets conveyed only by registered sale deed. It is not in dispute that the lands sought to be covered were having value of more than Rs 100. Therefore, unless there was a registered document of sale in favour of the proposed transferee agreement-holders, the title of the lands would not get divested from the vendor and would remain in his ownership. There is no dispute on this aspect. However, strong reliance was placed by learned counsel for Respondent 3 on Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act. We fail to appreciate how that section can at all be relevant against the third party like the appellant State. That section provides for a shield of protection to the proposed transferee to remain in possession against the original owner who has agreed to sell these lands to the transferee if the proposed transferee satisfies other conditions of Section 53-A. That protection is available as a shield only against the transferor, the proposed vendor, and would disentitle him from disturbing the possession of the proposed transferees who are put in possession pursuant to such an agreement. But that has nothing to do with the ownership of the proposed transferor who remains....