TMI Blog2022 (10) TMI 1222X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1047 - SUPREME COURT] as held Section 2 (9) (A) and Section 2 (9) (C) are substantive provisions creating the offence of benami transaction. These two provisions are significantly and substantially wider than the definition of benami transaction under Section 2 (a) of the unamended 1988 Act. Therefore, Section 2 (9) (A) and Section 2 (9) (C) can only have effect prospectively. Central Government has notified the date of coming into force of the Amendment Act of 2016 as 01.11.2016. Therefore, these two provisions cannot be applied to a transaction which took place prior to 01.11.2016. As petitioners contends that review of the said judgment is pending. Since as of now the issue stands covered by the judgment in the case of Ganpati De ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Pass such order or further orders(s) as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and to secure the ends of justice. 3. The appellant has filed the aforesaid application, inter alia, contending as follows: That the properties which are subject matter of the present proceedings and are mentioned below have been acquired during the period 2009-2010, which is much prior to 25.10.2016 i.e. the date of enforcement of 2016 Amendment Act. The details of Properties: First Property Land measuring 352 Sq.yrds vide Khasra no 105/20/1(4-9) situated at village Kansal, Punjab, purchased vide Registered Sale Deed 3751/2010 dated16.12.2010. Second Property Land measuring 0-29-72 hectares vide Khata Kh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ep Sethi, address being House No. 97, Sector-21A, Chandigarh. (b) While making enquiries from the office of District Collector Shimla and from Superintendent of Police, Solan, Himachal Pradesh it was gathered that Sh. Ashok Sethi, Sh. Sandeep Sethi along with Smt. Anu Sethi, and Smt. Chandra Mohan Sethi were involved in buying benami properties. (c) During the course of Investigation under section 23 of the PBPT Act, 1988 it was founded that during F.Y. 2007-08 and onwards properties were purchased in the manner of Sh. Sandeep Sethi, Ashok Sethi (father of Sandeep Sethi) and few in the names of his wife and mother of Sh. Sandeep Sethi where they have been held as benamidars and the beneficial ownership was found to be one or other ent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) of PBPT Act, 1988 dated 23.07.2018 was passed provisionally attaching the above mentioned properties as benami properties and holding Sh. Sandeep Sethi as beneficial owner of the benami property. The said order was confirmed by the Hon ble Adjudicating Authority, New Delhi U/s 26(3) of the PBPT Act, 1988 vide order Reference 974/2018 dated 13.08.2019. (h) In the SLP No. 2784/2020 in Hon ble Supreme Court Judgment in the case of Union of India V/s M/s Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd it is held in Para 18.1 (c) that That 2016 Amendment Act was not merely procedural, rather, prescribed substantive provisions. It is also held in para 18.1(e) that concerned authorities cannot initiate or continue criminal prosecution or confiscation proceeding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2009 respectively. 6. On perusal of the impugned order as well as the reference of the respondent vide Reference No. R-974/2018 before the Adjudicating Authority, it is confirmed that the properties involved and the dates of alleged transactions are the same. Now the question of retrospective application of the provisions of the PBPT Act, 1988 as amended in 2016 to the facts and circumstances of the present case, is to be examined. On the question of retrospective application the appellant has relied on the aforesaid judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court (supra) and it is submitted by the appellant that the same is squarely applicable to the present facts and circumstances of the case. 7. On perusal of the judgment (supra) it is seen that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the case, rather it is stated in Paragraph 9 of the respondent s response, that Since the ongoing proceedings undergoing in the Hon ble Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi with respect to Sh. Sandeep Sethi case, it can be stated that the Benami Transactions pertains to F.Y. 2009-10 and F.Y. 2010-11. The Benami transactions in this case were entered into before the date mentioned in Hon ble Supreme Court Judgement i.e. 25.10.2016. The properties attached in the provisional attachment order passed u/s 24(4)(i)(a) of the PBPT Act, 1988 are benami transactions pertaining aforementioned dates as mentioned in table no. 1 9. After due consideration of the present facts and circumstances of the case, it is concluded that the alleged benami t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
