Shrenik Shah Vs Initiating Officer (Appellate Tribunal Under SAFEMA Delhi)
Attachment of Abettor’s Property Invalid Without Proof It Is Benami Property: SAFEMA Tribunal; PBPT Act Does Not Permit Attachment of Abettor’s Assets Without Benami Finding: SAFEMA; SAFEMA Tribunal Says Attachment Can Continue Only Against Benamidar or Beneficial Owner; Property Attachment Quashed Because Authorities Failed to Prove Assets Were Benami; SAFEMA Tribunal Clarifies That Abettors Can Face Prosecution But Not Automatic Property Attachment; Attachment of Bank Accounts and Insurance Policies Set Aside Because Appellant Was Not Beneficial Owner; SAFEMA Tribunal Holds Benami Law Does Not Allow Attachment Merely Due to Alleged Facilitation Role
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal Under SAFEMA challenged the order dated 30 May 2019 passed under Section 26(3) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 (PBPTA), whereby the Adjudicating Authority confirmed the Provisional Attachment Order dated 26 April 2018 issued by the Initiating Officer, BPU, Ahmedabad.
The matter arose from alleged benami transactions involving demonetized currency routed through bank accounts during the demonetization period. According to the record, RTGS transfers amounting to ₹47,40,000 were made from M/s Gujarat Enterprise to M/s Shivam Jewellers. Statements of several persons were recorded during investigation, including Shri Shrenik Shah, Shri Paresh D. Soni of Shivam Jewellers, and alleged entry operators. The authorities alleged that old high denomination notes were deposited into benami bank accounts and subsequently transferred through RTGS/NEFT channels.
