PBPT Act Does Not Permit Attachment of Abettor’s Assets Without Benami Finding: SAFEMA  

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.

The appellant contended that he had denied carrying out business transactions with Shivam Jewellers during the demonetization period and disputed allegations that he arranged RTGS payments through third parties. It was also argued that the properties attached by the authorities had already been provisionally attached in multiple other benami proceedings where the appellant had initially been treated as the beneficial owner.

During adjudication proceedings, the Initiating Officer moved an application under Sections 26(5) and 26(6) of the PBPTA seeking modification of the original position. The Initiating Officer requested that Shri Paresh D. Soni, proprietor of Shivam Jewellers, be treated as the beneficial owner, that the name of Shri Shrenik Shah be deleted as beneficial owner, and that Shri Shrenik Shah instead be treated as an abettor who facilitated the benami transactions.

The Adjudicating Authority accepted this request after considering the material on record. It concluded that ₹47,40,000 in demonetized currency had initially been deposited into the bank account of M/s Gujarat Enterprise, the alleged benamidar, and later transferred into the accounts of Shivam Jewellers on the false pretext of bullion sales. The Authority held that the transactions constituted benami transactions under Section 2(9) of the PBPTA and that Shri Shrenik Shah acted as an abettor within the meaning of Section 53 of the Act.

Despite holding Shri Shrenik Shah to be only an abettor and not the beneficial owner, the Adjudicating Authority directed continuation of provisional attachment of several bank accounts, immovable properties, investment accounts, and insurance policies standing in his name until completion of proceedings under the PBPTA.

Before the Tribunal, the appellant relied upon an earlier Tribunal judgment dated 10 March 2025 involving similar facts and related appeals concerning the same parties. In that judgment, the Tribunal had held that although abettors could face prosecution under Section 53 of the PBPTA, there was no provision in the Act permitting attachment of their properties unless those properties themselves were proved to be benami properties.

The Tribunal observed that in the present case also, the Adjudicating Authority had accepted the Initiating Officer’s request to classify Shri Shrenik Shah as an abettor rather than as the beneficial owner. The Tribunal noted that once the appellant was treated only as an abettor, attachment of his properties could not continue unless there was a specific finding that those properties themselves were benami properties.

The Tribunal held that the PBPTA permits attachment of benami property in the hands of the benamidar or beneficial owner, but does not authorize attachment merely because a property belongs to an abettor. Since the authorities failed to establish that the attached properties of Shri Shrenik Shah were themselves benami properties, continuation of attachment was legally unsustainable.

Accordingly, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order insofar as it related to attachment of the appellant’s properties and allowed the appeal. However, the Tribunal clarified that the appellant, as an alleged abettor, would still remain subject to consequences under Section 53 of the PBPTA for his role in the alleged benami transactions.

FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA AT NEW DELHI

This Order disposes of the Appeal No. FPA-PBPT-762/AHD/2019 filed by Shri Shrenik Shah against the Order dated 30.05.2019 (Impugned Order) passed by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority under Section 26 (3) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Act, 1988 (PBPTA), New Delhi in Reference No. R­820/2018, whereby the Ld. Adjudicating Authority (AA) confirmed the Provisional Attachment Order dated 26.04.2018 (PAO) passed by the Initiating Officer, BPU, Ahmedabad under Section 24 (4) of PBPTA.

2. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant submitted that Shri Paresh D Soni, Prop. of Shivam Jewellers received RTGS of Rs, 47,40,000 through M/s Gujarat Enterprise, Prop. Mo. Rizwan Mujahid Saiyed. Ld. Counsel further submitted that the statements of Shri Shrenik Shah and Shri Jigishbhai Shah Prop. of Parin Jewellers were recorded on oath on 14.08.2017 in which they stated that they did not transact any business with Shital Jewellers and Shivam Jewellers during the demonetization period (8.11.2017 to 31.12.2017). However, the statement of Shri Paresh Soni, Prop. M/s Shivam Jewellers was recorded on 18.08.2017 in which he stated that he received RTGS in lieu of delivery of gold to Shri Shrenikbhai. Shri Zahir Abbas K Mithawala in his statement recorded on 22.08.2017 stated that he received Rs. 8-10 crores (approximately) in cash in Old High Denomination (OHD) notes from Faim Khan alias Shaileshbhai along with the paper slip on which the details of bank accounts were mentioned and after depositing the cash in benami accounts, the same was transferred through RTGS/NEFT to the bank accounts as mentioned in the paper slip. Faim Abdul Salim Khan alias Shaileshbhai in his statement recorded on 22.08.2017 stated that cash of Rs. 10 crores along with paper slip on which details of bank accounts were mentioned was received from Shri Shrenik Shah and the same cash was handed over to Zahir K Mithawala. The statement of Shri Shrenik Shah was recorded on oath on 01.09.2017 and cross examination was conducted among Shri Shrenik Shah, Faim Khan alias Shaileshbhai, and Paresh D Soni where Shri Shrenik Shah denied. On further verification it was found that Mo. Rizwan Mujahid Saiyed Prop. of Gujarat Enterprise was involved in money laundering activities with the help of middlemen as well as entry operators who were facilitating the fraudulent activities of converting unaccounted OHD notes through banking channel. On analysis of the bank account details of the firm, it was found that an amount of Rs. 47,40,000 was transferred from the account of M/s Gujarat Enterprise to Shivam Jewellers. Statements of Aftab Kazi, the entry operator was recorded on oath on 21.12.2016, 24.12.2016 and 06.01.2017, whereas the statement of Zahir Mithawala, another entry operator was recorded on 26.12.2016 and 06.01.2017. Both of them had stated on oath that they had received cash in old high denomination notes and the benami bank accounts were utilized for depositing the demonetized currency.

3. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant stated that the final Show Cause Notice (SCN) was issued to Mo. Rizwan Mujahid Saiyed (Prop. Gujarat Enterprise) asking why he should not be treated as the Benamidar in respect of cash aggregating to Rs. 47,40,000 deposited in the bank account No.916020005234789 of M/s Gujarat Enterprise and subsequently transferred to M/s Shivam Jewellers. In response to this, he did not submit any reply. Therefore, it was clear that he did not want to say anything. A search and survey action was carried out at the residence as well as the business premises of Shri Paresh D Soni, on 24.01.2017. The statement of Shri Paresh Dwarkadas Soni was also recorded under Section 132(4) of the IT Act on 24.01.2017. During the course of recording of his statement, he was shown the statements of Zahir Mithawala and Aftab Kazi wherein they had stated that they operate different benami accounts (bogus concerns) in which cash was deposited as received from a middleman named Shaileshbhai and as per Shailesh’s instructions the funds were transferred to the bank account of M/s Shivam/Shital Jewellers. Further, the entry operators had confirmed that in these transactions there was no business activity involved. Shri Paresh D. Soni was asked to verify the same and provide an explanation. In response, Shri Paresh Soni stated that he did not know Zahir Mithawala, Aftab Kazi or Shaileshbhai and the money remitted from the bank account of Shivam Jewellers was against the sale of gold bullion to various other jewellers as Parin Jewellers, Atul Ornament/Snaihchain Pvt. Ltd., Joy Pintu and Man Ornament. These all firms/ concerns belong to Shri Shrenik Shah and his close family members. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant submitted that Shri Paresh Dwarkadas Soni in his case and in his wife’s case (as the business affairs of M/s Shital Jewellers were controlled by Shri Paresh Dwarkadas Soni) and Shri Faim Abdul Khan alias Shaileshbhai appeared on 01.09.2017 for cross examination with Shri Shrenik Shah. During the proceedings of cross examination Shri Shrenik Shah said that he did not carry out any business transaction with Paresh D Soni during the demonetization period. He also said that he had good relations with Paresh D Soni. Statement under Section 132(4) dated 26.01.2017 and statement under Section 19 (1) of PBPT Act dated 18.08.2017 were perused by Shrenik Shah. Shri Shrenik Shah did not agree with the statement of Paresh D Soni wherein he stated that the delivery of gold was taken by Shri Shrenik Shah and RTGS payment was made through third parties viz SUKUN Enterprise, Aryan Corparation, The Visa Hub, Laston Enterprise, Metro Enterprise, Jolly Trading, Krystal Enterprise and Gujarat Enterprise, by Shri Shrenik Shah himself.

4. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant pleaded that provisional attachment under Section 24 (4) (b) (i) of the PBPT Act was passed for the amount of Rs.47,40,000 to provisionally attach the following properties in possession of Shri Shrenik Shah till the passing of the order by the Adjudicating Authority under Section 26 (3) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988. Ld. Counsel stated that these properties were already provisionally attached in 11 other benami cases where Sh. Shrenik Shah was held the beneficial owner:

(1) Bank Account vide No.805008001001405, 805008306000282 and 805008101000745 maintained with Sarvodaya Co. Op. Commercial Bank, Paldi Branch, Vraj Plaza, Bhatta Road, Paldi, Ahmedabad was attached in the case of Shri Shrenik Shah (Beneficial Owner) and Mo. Rizwan Majahid Saiyed Prop. of Gujrat Enterprise (Benamidar) as against benami transaction involving Rs. 47,40,000.

(2) Bank Account vide No.0317201012869, 0317101029945 and 0317101028682 maintained with Canara Bank, Bhadra (Main) Branch, Krishna House, Opp. Advance Cinema, Ahmedabad was attached in the case of Shri Shrenik Shah (Beneficial Owner) and Mo. Rizwan Majahid Saiyed Prop. of Gujrat Enterprise (Benamidar) as against benami transaction involving Rs. 47,40,000.

(3) Bank Account vide No.062163700000433 maintained with Yes Bank, Shop No.1, Gangaram Chamber, Relief Road, Ghee Katha Cross Road, Ahmedabad was attached in the case of Shri Shrenik Shah (Beneficial Owner) and Mo. Rizwan Majahid Saiyed Prop. of Gujrat Enterprise (Benamidar) as against benami transaction involving Rs. 47,40,000.

(4) Immovable property (joint holder) situated at Shop No.4, Ground Floor, 24 Carat Building, Changispur, Ahmedabad vide Registration No. 8927/2016 (dated 23.12.2016) valued approximately Rs.11,00,000/- was attached in the case of Shri Shrenik Shah (Beneficial Owner) and Mo. Rizwan Majahid Saiyed Prop. of Gujrat Enterprise (Benamidar) as against benami transaction involving Rs. 47,40,000.

(5) Immovable property (joint holder) situated at Bunglow No.29, Prernatirth Bunglows, T. P. No.4, F. P. No. 142 & 157, Survey No.72/3, 73/1 and 76, Ahmedabad vide Registration No. 7752/2017 (dated 06.09.2017) valued approximately Rs. 1,00,00,000/- was attached in the case of Shri Shrenik Shah (Beneficial Owner) and Mo. Rizwan Majahid Saiyed Prop. of Gujrat Enterprise (Benamidar) as against benami transaction involving Rs. 47,40,000.

(6) CDSL Account vide No.1301520000085255 investment in Birla Sunlife Mutual Fund (Folio No.1030419785) and Canara Robacco Equity Folio No.1047110914 was attached in the case of Shri Shrenik Shah (Beneficial Owner) and Mo. Rizwan Majahid Saiyed Prop. of Gujrat Enterprise (Benamidar) as against benami transaction involving Rs. 47,40,000.

(7) Bank Account vide No.000761900002881 maintained with Yes Bank, 102/103, C. G. Centre, C. G. Road, Ahmedabad was attached in the case of Shri Shrenik Shah (Beneficial Owner) and Mo. Rizwan Majahid Saiyed Prop. of Gujrat Enterprise (Benamidar) as against benami transaction involving Rs. 47,40,000.

(8) Policies with No.139595621, 139625652, 139671584, 13902621, 139848631, 155950892 155952857, 155995136, 156001697, 156017816, and 316597478 maintained with Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Corporation Ltd. 4th Floor, Turquoise Building, Nr. Parimal Garden, Panchwati, Ahmedabad was attached to the extent of premium paid after 28.11.2016 in the case of Shri Shrenik Shah (Beneficial Owner) and Mo. Rizwan Majahid Saiyed Prop. of Gujrat Enterprise (Benamidar) as against benami transaction involving Rs. 47,40,000.

(9) Policy No.833331304 maintained with Life Insurance Corporation of India, Ahmedabad City, Branch Jeevan Prakash, 5th Floor, Tilak Marg, Ahmedabad was attached to the extent of premium paid after 28.11.2016 in the case of Shri Shrenik Shah (Beneficial Owner) and Mo. Rizwan Majahid Saiyed Prop. of Gujrat Enterprise (Benamidar) as against benami transaction involving Rs. 47,40,000.

(10) Policy No.832091931 maintained with Life Insurance Corporation of India, Ahmedabad City, Branch Jeevan Prakash, 5th Floor, Tilak Marg. Ahmedabad was attached to the extent of premium paid after 28.11.2016 in the case of Shri Shrenik Shah (Beneficial Owner) and Mo. Rizwan Majahid Saiyed Prop. of Gujrat Enterprise (Benamidar) as against benami transaction involving Rs. 47,40,000.

(11) Policy No.51842245 (Client Id 88945060) maintained with Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Co., 1″ -Block, 1 Floor, Dhirubhai Ambhani Knowledge City, New Mumbai, Maharashtra was attached to the extent of premium paid after 28.11.2016 in the case of Shri Shrenik Shah (Beneficial Owner) and Mo. Rizwan Majahid Saiyed Prop. of Gujrat Enterprise (Benamidar) as against benami transaction involving Rs. 47,40,000.

(12) Policy No.851484067 maintained with Life Insurance Corporation of India, Naranpura, GHB Complex, Nr.Ankur Bus Stand Ahmedabad was attached to the extent of premium paid after 28.11.2016 in the case of Shri Shrenik Shah (Beneficial Owner) and Mo. Rizwan Majahid Saiyed Prop. of Gujrat Enterprise (Benamidar) as against benami transaction involving Rs. 47,40,000.

(13) Policy No.003270115 (Client Id – 4090695011) maintained with Canara HSBC OBC Life Insurance Company Ltd. 2nd Floor, Orchid Business Park, Sector-48, Sona Road, Gurugram, Haryana was attached to the extent of premium paid after 28.11.2016 in the case of Shri Shrenik Shah (Beneficial Owner) and Mo. Rizwan Majahid Saiyed Prop. of Gujrat Enterprise (Benamidar) as against benami transaction involving Rs. 47,40,000.

5. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant stated that in the course of proceedings before the Ld. AA the Initiating Officer moved an application under Section 26 (6) and 26 (5) requesting to treat Shri Paresh D Soni, Prop. Shivam Jewellers as the beneficial owner, to strike out the name of Sh. Shrenik Shah as the beneficial owner, and to treat Sh. Shrenik Shah as the abettor having abetted the benamidar and the beneficial owner in entering into the benami transaction were accepted for consideration by the Ld. AA. The statutory notices were issued to all the parties and their detailed replies considered. The Initiating Officer also provided them the requested detail/documents as per law. After careful appreciation of the facts on record including the new facts reported by the Initiating Officer, Ld. AA was fairly convinced that the Initiating Officer has successfully concluded in the Provisional Attachment Order that the property of Rs. 47,40,000/ being the demonetized high value currency notes was initially deposited post demonetization into the bank accounts of Md. Rizwan Mujahid Saiyed Prop M/s Gujarat Enterprise, the benamidar. This property was ultimately transferred into the bank accounts of Mr. Paresh D Soni, Prop Shivam Jwellers on the false pretexts of sale of bullion. It constituted a benami transaction within the meaning of Section of 2 (9) of The Act which is prohibited under Section 3. Shri Shrenik Shah acted as abettor within the meaning of Section 53 of The Act in facilitating these transactions.

6. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant stated that the provisional attachment under Section 24 (4) (b) (i) of the PBPT Act have been passed for the amount of Rs. 47,40,000 to provisionally attach the properties in possession of Md. Rizwan Mujahid Saiyed till the passing of the order by the Adjudicating Authority under Section 26(3) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988. The bank Account vide No.915020049320870 maintained with Axis Bank, Memnagar Branch, Ahmedabad in the name of M/s Gujarat Enterprise has also been attached to the extent of Rs. 47,40,000 in the case of Shri Shrenik Shah (Beneficial Owner) and Md. Rizwan Mujahid Saiyed Prop. of M/s Gujarat Enterprise (Benamidar) as against benami transaction involving Rs. 47,40,000. Accordingly Cash deposit into the bank account of Md. Rizwan Mujahid Saiyed Prop. M/s Gujarat Enterprise bearing no. 915020049320870 in Axis Bank Memnagar Branch was confirmed as the benami property and Md. Rizwan Mujahid Saiyed Prop M/s Gujarat Enterprise as the benamidar of this benami property. Further, since the benami asset had been credited into the bank account of M/s Shivam Jwellers. Prop. Mr. Paresh D Soni and no further trail of movement of benami property was proved by Shri Paresh D Soni, he was held to be the beneficial owner of the benami property under consideration.

7. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant cited the Judgment dated 10.03.2025 of this Tribunal in 30 Appeals bearing similar facts. Of these 30 Appeals, 10 Appeals bearing Nos. FPA-PBPT-235-242/AHD/2019, FPA-PBPT-226/AHD/2019 & FPA-PBPT-229/AHD/ 2019 relate to Shri Shrenik Shah, who like the present case was initially treated as Beneficial Owner, but subsequently the Initiating Officer had found him to be the abettor. In this regard, he cited the following paragraphs of the Judgment (supra):

“So far as the factual issue involved in the present appeals are concerned, we have elaborately referred to it while narrating brief facts of the case. The appellant, beneficial owner, namely M/s Parker Bullion Pvt. Ltd, M/s Gayatri Jewellers, M/s Shreeji enterprises, M/s Patidar Bullion Pvt. Ltd., M/s M.S. Jewellers, Kundan Trading Company, M/s Shital Jewellers and M/s Shivam Jewellers has submitted that there was no benami transaction at their instance. It is submitted that not only books of accounts but stock register was produced to show the stock of gold with the appellant Companies and in fact was delivered to the purchaser who are now taken to be benamidars. It is with further statement that even the entry operators did not disclose the name of the appellant Companies named above for providing cash.

We have scanned the matter carefully to analyzed the issue and find that that appellant bullion Companies namely M/s Parker Bullion Pvt. Ltd, M/s Gayatri Jewellers, M/s Shreeji enterprises, M/s Patidar Bullion Pvt. Ltd., M/s M.S. Jewellers, Kundan Trading Company, M/s Shital Jewellers and M/s Shivam Jewellers had created back dated entries in the stock register and other documents which become clear from the FSL digital device report and schedule I to V. In fact, the bullion companies were not having matching stock of gold to pass it on to those firms who had transferred the amount through RTGS. The reference of audio recording to show the transaction has been given which has also been analyzed and mere recording of the transaction would not mean that actual transaction has taken. What is required is the actual happening and not just recording of happening to take place. It is not that the documents produced by the appellant bullion companies were casually ignored rather deep routed investigation was made. The alleged delivery of gold to the benamidars through the abettors was said to have been delivered further to one ‘Mohammad’ who has refused about delivery of gold.

The respondent thus tried to reach to the complete chain to find out actual happening. It is further necessary to clarify that if the gold was purchased, the appellant bullion Company should have produced the payment towards the alleged gold but no such material was produced in a specific. The critical analysis of all the issues has been made in the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority and we don’t find any error therein to cause interference in the finding and accordingly the appeal fails and dismissed.

The case of the abettors

The argument against the attachment has been raised by the abettor. It is submitted that their property has been attached while they were not the beneficial owner or the benamidars. A reference of section 53 of the Act of 1988 has been given to show that abettors can be subjected to prosecution but there is no provision for attachment of their property. The counsel for the respondents made a contest to it. However, we find substance in the argument of the counsel for the abettors. As per the framework of the Act of 1988, what can we attached is the benami property. In the instant case, the property in the hands of abettor has not been taken to be benami property. Respondents have failed to prove that the property of the abettors is benami property as defined under the Act of 1988. In fact, the bullion Companies, namely M/s Parker Bullion Pvt. Ltd, M/s Gayatri Jewellers, M/s Shreeji enterprises, M/s Patidar Bullion Pvt. Ltd., M/s M.S. Jewellers, Kundan Trading Company, M/s Shital Jewellers and M/s Shivam Jewellers were taken to be the beneficial owner and the allegation against them was to channelize the demonetized money to convert into monetized money. The money was routed through the benamidars and ultimately reached to them as stated by the respondents themselves. There is no allegation that money came to that abettor and it remained with them.

The appeals of the abettors are thus allowed. The attachment of their properties is set aside for the reason that attached property could not be proved to be benami property however they are not excluded for their role in benami transaction with consequence of section 53 of the Act of 1988.”

Ld. Counsel therefore prayed to allow the Appeal along the same lines as the aforementioned Judgment.

8. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent while agreeing that the present case also bears similar facts as the cases disposed of by this Tribunal in its Judgment dated 10.03.2025, pointed out that the Ld. AA has ordered to continue with attachment of the properties of Shri Shrenik Shah in the present case. In this regard, he cited the following paragraphs from the Conclusion of the Impugned Order:

“Accordingly, PAO is confirmed holding the Cash deposited in Bank Account No. 915020049320870 of Md. Rizwan Mujahid Saiyed Prop M/s Gujarat Enterprise in Axis Bank as Benami Asset, Md. Rizwan Mujahid Saiyed Prop M/s Gujarat Enterprise as Benamidar and Mr. Paresh D Soni Prop M/s Shivam Jwellers as the Beneficial Owner of the Benami Asset with Shri Shrenik Shah (old Beneficiary owner) as the Abettor of the entire Benami transaction

Pending attachment of the entire property that was the subject matter of the benami transaction, the provisional attachment of the properties being the bank balances, policies, immovable properties etc. made by the 10 holding D-2 i.e. Mr. Shrenik Shah beneficial owner lying in different bank accounts in various names shall continue till the finalization of proceedings  under the Act.”

Ld. Counsel therefore pleaded to dismiss the Appeal.

9. We have considered the rival submissions and the material on record. It is not disputed that Shri Shrenik Shah, the Appellant herein was initially treated as the Beneficial Owner, but was subsequently held as the Abettor. It is on record that the Initiating Officer moved the application before the Ld. AA during the adjudication proceedings for holding Shri. Paresh D. Soni Prop. M/s Shivam Jewellers as the Beneficial Owner and treat Shri Shrenik Shah as the Abettor. On perusal of the Impugned Order, it is clear that the Ld. AA after discussing the role of Shri Shrenik Shah and Shri Paresh D. Soni agreed with the prayer of the Initiating Officer under Section 26 (6) of the PBPTA. In this regard, the concluding paragraphs 19.3, 19.4 & 19.5 A, B & C are cited below:

“19.3 Accordingly, the new facts brought on record by the IO requesting to add Mr. Paresh D Soni, Prop Shivam Jwellers as the beneficial owner, to strike out the name of Shrenik Shah as the beneficial owner, and to treat Shrenik Shah as the abettor having abetted the benamidar and the beneficial owner in entering into the benami transaction were accepted for consideration by this Authority and statutory notices were issued to all the parties and their detailed replies considered. The 10 also provided them the requested detail/documents as per law in compliance of the directions issued to him in the open Court during the course of the proceedings. The oral arguments of the Ld. Counsels who appeared on behalf of respective defendants have also been taken into consideration by this Authority.

19.4 After careful appreciation of the facts on record including the new facts reported by the IO, we are fairly convinced that the IO has successfully concluded in the PO that the property of Rs 47,40,000/ being the demonetized high value currency notes was initially deposited post demonetization into the bank accounts of Md. Rizwan Mujahid Saiyed Prop M/s Gujarat Enterprise, the benamidar. This property was ultimately transferred into the bank accounts of Mr. Paresh D Soni, Prop Shivam Jwellers on the false pretexts of sale of bullion. It constitutes a benami transaction within the meaning of section of 2 (9) of The Act which is prohibited u/s 3. Shrenik Shah acted as abettor within the meaning of section 53 of The Act in facilitating these transactions.

19.5 Accordingly, this Authority holds as under-

A- The sum of Rs 47,40,000/ being the high value demonetized currency notes was deposited into the bank accounts of the benamidar Md. Rizwan Mujahid Saiyed Prop M/s Gujarat Enterprise demonetization by Shri Paresh D Soni, Prop Shivam Jwellers, the beneficial owner

B-It was ultimately transferred into the beneficial owner’s bank accounts on the false pretext of sale of bullion

C-Shrenik Shah facilitated the aforesaid transaction and, accordingly is the abettor within the meaning of section 53 of The Act. The Aforesaid transaction is benami transaction. Accordingly, the PO issued by the 10 u/s 24(4)(b)(i) of The Act on 26/4/2018 is hereby upheld in the interest of revenue till the finalisation of the proceedings in this case under the PBPT Act.”

10. We have no reason to disagree with the Judgment (supra) dated 10.03.2025 of this Tribunal in the connected matters. We therefore set aside the Impugned Order qua the attachment of the properties of the abettor Shri Shrenik Shah since there is no provision for attachment of the property of the abettors. Continuance of the provisional attachment of the properties of the Appellant, who was found to be abettor and not Beneficial Owner, without any specific finding that such property was Benami cannot be sustained. The PBPTA provides for attachment of the benami property in the hands of either Benamidar or Beneficial Owner, however, the Act does not provide for attachment of a property merely because it is in the hands of the abettor without it being benami. It is made clear that the Appellant abettor is not excluded from the consequences of Section 53 of the PBPTA for the role in benami transaction, even though his property could not be proved to be benami.

11. In view of the aforementioned discussions and analysis, we allow the Appeal No. FPA-PBPT-762/AHD/2019 filed by Shri Shrenik Shah. Applications pending, if any, are disposed of accordingly.