2026 (8) TMI 817

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....gh Arora, S.P.P. ORDER By batch of these appeals, a challenge has been made to the order dated 31.05.2025 passed by the Adjudicating Authority under Section 26(3) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 (in short "the Act of 1988") confirming the provisional attachment of the properties. Brief facts of the case: 2. The case involves transactions relating to three properties in which the appellant, Mr. Anup Majee has been treated as the beneficial owner while the other appellants have been treated as benamidars. For purchase of the properties involved under provisional attachment, the consideration was transmitted by the beneficial owner. The property was purchased in the name of the benamidar who did not con....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rother-in-law. The amount was transferred as a loan and utilized for purchase of the properties and thus could not have been considered to be a case of "benami transaction". 5. The appellant, Mr. Anup Majee being the brother was within his right to transfer the amount to his sister and brother-in-law out of love and affection. It could have been even as a loan, therefore, the Adjudicating Authority erred in confirming the provisional attachment of the property. 6. Ld. Counsel for the appellants further submitted that the Adjudicating Authority even failed to consider the third limb of the definition of "benami transaction" given under Section 2(9)(A) of the Act of 1988. The respondent has failed to prove the benami transaction in ques....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nd. 10. It was submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the appellants that for the purchase of properties by the benamidars i.e. sister and brother-in-law, the beneficial owner, Mr. Anup Majee extended the loan and therefore it could not have been considered to be a case of benami transaction. Ld. Counsel for the appellant raised the argument aforesaid but could not show a loan document between the beneficial owner and the benamidars. The plea of loan was, thus, taken for the sake of it and without any proof. 11. The loan said to have been extended by the beneficial owner to his sister and brother-in-law out of love and affection. The Adjudicating Authority has dealt with the issue by holding that if an element of love and affection was exis....