Smt. Saryu Miglani Vs Initiating Officer (Appellate Tribunal Under SAFEMA Delhi)
The appeal was filed under Section 46(2) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 (PBPT Act) against an order dated 27.07.2018 passed by the Adjudicating Authority. The Adjudicating Authority had confirmed attachment of the appellant’s Axis Bank account to the extent of Rs. 5,00,000 while releasing the attached immovable property.
The matter arose after the Deputy Director of Income Tax (Investigation), Ghaziabad informed the Initiating Officer that Rs. 30,00,000 in demonetized currency had been deposited into the account of M/s Shyama Trading Company, operated by Shri Ghanshyam Patel, and later transferred to several accounts, including that of the appellant, Smt. Saryu Miglani.
During a search, Shri Ghanshyam Patel stated that the transactions in the account were not conducted by him but by Shri Rahul Choudhary using pre-signed cheques. He further stated that the deposits made after 01.11.2016 did not belong to him. Based on the available material, the Initiating Officer formed the belief that Shri Ghanshyam Patel was a benamidar under Section 2(10) of the PBPT Act and that Rs. 5,00,000 transferred to the appellant constituted benami property under Section 2(8).
A notice under Section 24(1) of the PBPT Act was issued to Shri Ghanshyam Patel, with a copy to the appellant as alleged beneficial owner. The appellant replied that the amount of Rs. 5,00,000 received from M/s Shyama Trading Company had been declared under the Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Yojna, 2016 (PMGKY). She stated that she had surrendered the amount, paid tax, surcharge, and penalty, and made the required declaration under the scheme.
