TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 537
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eficial owners through their sources. The details of the properties are mentioned in the table at page 3 to 11 of the impugned order. 2. As per the facts of the case, the O/o BPU, Bhopal, the Initiating Officer, in order to ascertain the source of funds in the hands of Smt. Hemlata Saraogi & Shri Manish Saraogi for purchasing the many properties in cash, recorded their statements on oath, in which Smt. Hemlata Saraogi was enquired about her PAN. She has denied about the same and she stated that her ITRs are filed by Shri Satish Saraogi. She was specifically confronted with the list of the properties in her name as mentioned in Show-Cause Notice dated 27.02.2018 and was asked whether she is aware of these properties or not. In response, she categorically denied before IO about the ownership of these properties. She also stated that if there was any property in her name then it would be in the knowledge of her brother in-law Shri Satish Saraogi. Further Shri Manish Saraogi, stated to IO that currently he is not doing any business and, in the past, he used to issue cheques after accepting cash from various entities in lieu of commission. He also stated that his Income Tax Return....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f immovable properties. Smt. Hemlata Saraogi & Shri Manish Saraogi have just signed on various documents on the instructions of Shri Satish Saraogi, and thus, they (Smt. Hemlata Saraogi & Shri Manish Saraogi) have entered into the transactions, where properties are transferred in their names for which the consideration have been paid or provided by Shri Satish Saraogi, and therefore, such transactions are covered under the definition of "Benami Transactions" u/s. 2(9)(A) & 2(9)(C) of PBPT. A Show Cause Notice u/s. 24(1) of the PBPT Act 1988 was Issued on 27.02.2018 and subsequently a Provisional Attachment Order u/s. 24(3) of the PBPT Act, 1988 was also issued by IO on 27.02.2018 in respect of the properties mentioned in the para 1 Table-1 & Table-ll in which Smt. Hemlata Saraogi was the Benamidar for properties mentioned in Table-1 and Shri Manish Saraogi was the Benamidar for the properties mentioned in Table 2 and the Beneficial Owners for all these properties was to be ascertained. After the issuance of the above-mentioned Show Cause Notice dated 27.02.2018, the following enquiries have been made by IO:- During the course of statement Smt. Hemlata Saraogi stated that s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d that he could not state the source of investment in these properties and the same he would say after seeing the books of Smt. Hemlata Saraogi. c) During the course of statement, Shri Satish Saraogi has also admitted that the books of accounts of Smt. Hemlata Saraogi and Shri Manish Saraogi are with him and he (Shri Satish Saraogi) himself only manages all the financial affairs and also the transactions of the immovable properties of Smt. Hemlata Saraogi and Shri Manish d) Further, during the course of statement Shri Satish Saraogi was specifically asked to state the details of all the properties held in the name of Shri Manish Saraogi and Smt. Hemlata Saraogi. In response, Shri Satish Saragoi stated that there are several immovable properties in the name of Shri Manish Saraogi and Smt. Hemlata Saraogi in Katni, Panna and within the sphere of 50 km of Katni. He was unable to state the exact details viz. Location of the properties, seller name etc. and said to produce the said information within one week. But he never produced any such documents so far. In his earlier statements dated 16.01.2018 and dated 22.01.2018, Shri Satish Saraogi said to produce various doc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... These registries were only in the knowledge of Shri Sharad Saraogi only. The Benamidars were found completely unknown regarding these properties. Thus, it is evident that the Beneficial Owner Shri Sharad Saraogi has not disclosed these properties before the Benamidar viz. Shri Manish Saraogi & Smt. Hemlata Saragoi in order to derive the direct or indirect future benefit from the impugned properties. Thus, it clearly established that Shri Sharad Saraogi is the Beneficial Owner for the impugned lands. Both Smt. Hemlata Saraogi & Shri Manish Saraogi have stated in their statements that they don't have any property owned in their names and they are also completely unaware of the respective properties mentioned in Table 1 & Table-2 and further Shri Satish Saraogi also admitted that he (Satish Saraogi) has managed all the financial affairs and also the transactions of the immovable properties of Smt. Hemlata Saraogi and Shri Manish Saraogi. However, Shri Satish Saraogi could not explain to IO the source of investment in the above-mentioned immovable properties in Table -1 & Table-2. On the other hand, Smt. Hemlata Saraogi & Shri Manish Saraogi also could not explain the source of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ommon issue:- Whether properties already provisionally attached under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), vide Provisional Attachment Order No. 02/2017 dated 17.11.2017, could again be attached under Section 24 of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988? He pointed out that prior to the attachment under PBPT Act, the Enforcement Directorate issued the Provisional Attachment Order No. 02/2017 dated 17.11.2017 under Section 5(1) of PMLA in ECIR/INSZO/ 01/2017/1262. The said attachment was confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority under PMLA vide order dated 04.05.2018. Appeals filed by the appellants under section 26 of PMLA, before this Appellate Tribunal was also dismissed vide order dated 18.08.2025 in FPA-PMLA-2386-2388/ IDR/2018. The said attachment under PMLA still continues to subsist, though the appeal is pending before the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court, Principal Bench Jabalpur. Accordingly, he stressed that once the property stood attached under PMLA, it was legally incapable of alienation and hence, there was no necessity on the part of Initiating Officer/DCIT to make second attachment of the same properties under PBPT A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2017 accordingly, impugned order for the property which was under attachment under the Act of 2002 is quashed". He contended that the facts of the present case are quite identical and hence, the present appeals be allowed, as there was no apprehension that properties were likely to be alienated. 4. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the respondent department has strongly opposed for allowing this appeal on this ground and contended that it was the duty on the part of the appellants to point out the previous attachment of the said properties by ED under PMLA, when they appeared in pursuance to notice dated 27.02.2018, and before the passing of second PAO dated 24.05.2018 under PBPT. The appellants have not disclosed this material information and thus they are not entitled to take this plea at this belated stage on account of active concealment. IO was ignorant about the previous attachment dated 17.11.2017 under PMLA. He argued that if the fact of previous attachment was brought to the knowledge of the IO, then he would not have passed the Second PAO dated 24.05.2018 under PBPT Act u/s. 24(4)(a)(i) of the PBPT. He argued that if the first PAO dated 27.02.2018 is deemed to be u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es any property as being held by a benamidar referred to in that sub-section, a copy of the notice shall also be issued to the beneficial owner if his identity is known. (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 ninety days from the last day of the month in which the notice under sub-section (1) is issued. (4) The Initiating Officer, after making such inquires and calling for such reports or evidence as he deems fit and taking into account all relevant materials, shall, within a period of ninety days from the last day of the month in which the notice under sub-section (1) is issued, - (a) where the provisional attachment has been made under sub-section (3), - (i) pass an order continuing the provisional attachment of the property with the prior approval of the Approving Authority, till the passing of the order by the Adjudicating Autho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nsel for the respondent department that it was the duty on the part of the appellants to point out the previous attachment of the said properties by ED under PMLA, when they appeared in pursuance to notice dated 27.02.2018. After, receiving the said knowledge, the IO could have revboked the earlier PAO dated 27.02.2018, and thereafter, after conclusion of investigation, he might have proceeded under section 24(4)(b)(i) of the PBPT Act, instead of passing the second PAO dated 24.05.2018 under section 24(4)(a)(i) PBPT. The appellants have not disclosed the material information of previous attachment under PMLA by ED and thus they are not entitled to take this plea at this belated stage on account of active concealment. There is nothing on record to show that the IO was conscious about the previous attachment dated 17.11.2017 under PMLA. If the previous attachment was brought to the knowledge of the IO, then certainly he would not have passed the Second PAO dated 24.05.2018, without revoking the previous PAO dated 27.02.2018. In absence of attachment u/s. 24(3) of the PBPT, the IO had the power to attach the property u/s. 24(4)(b)(i), and thus, he would have adopted this alternate pro....