Home Case Index All Cases Benami Property Benami Property + Other Benami Property - 2019 (8) TMI Other This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (8) TMI 414 - Other - Benami PropertyBenami transaction - beneficial owner - alleged cash/banking transaction trail of AMPL that huge amount of cash was deposited in the bank account of the benamidar, M/s. AMPL and within no time the same got routed through bank account of DMPL to reach its final destinations - Section 2(9) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988. HELD THAT:- The transfer of money through RTGS in the account of the appellant, who after due enquiry,returned the money next day, in our view is not a benami transaction falling within the definition as prescribed under the Act. From the above, it is clear that there was no benami transaction so far as the appellant is concerned so there is no question of the appellant becoming the beneficial owner. No material has been placed before us nor available on record proving that the appellant has entered into any benami transaction or in any way a beneficial owner. It is the limited grievance of the appellant before this Tribunal is that when the Authority has come to the findings that the Initiating Officer has not said anything substantial against the present appellant and that the appellant has nothing to do with the M/s. Apsara Merchandise Pvt. Ltd. or the amount lying in the bank account of benamidar which is not legally claimed by the appellant, the Adjudicating Authority ought to have held that the appellant is not a Beneficial Owner with regards to the amount of ₹ 28,10,625/- lying in the aforesaid account of SBI and attached by the Initiating Officer and that the appellant‟s name ought to have been removed as a Beneficial Owner - It is clear from the impugned order that the learned Adjudicating Authority, on the basis of material, facts and circumstances has held that the Initiating Officer has not said anything substantial against the appellant and also has considered the plea of the appellant that it is not claiming the amount lying in the bank account of benamidar.The most important aspect is also that the Initiating Officer has not challenged the aforesaid findings of the learned Adjudicating Authority. The appellant is not a Beneficial owner within the meaning of the definitions defined under Sections 2(12) of PBPT Act, 1988 - appeal allowed.
|