Benami Attachment of Three Agricultural Properties Upheld: SAFEMA Tribunal

Pawan Kumar Vs Initiating Officer (Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA, New Delhi)

Benami Attachment Upheld as Retracted Statement Was Corroborated by Property Transfers and Financial Records

Introduction

The Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA, New Delhi, upheld the attachment of three immovable properties under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, dismissing appeals filed by Pawan Kumar, his mother Urmila Devi and his wife Sonam.

The Tribunal relied on the alleged benamidar’s admission, his financial profile, bank records and subsequent transfers to the appellants’ family. It held that the later retraction of the admission did not displace the corroborative material supporting the benami arrangement.

Background of the Case

The dispute concerned three agricultural properties in Farrukhabad, Uttar Pradesh, initially purchased in the name of Yashveer Singh. The Department alleged that he was merely the ostensible owner, while Pawan Kumar and his family were the beneficial owners.

Pawan Kumar practised as an advocate and deed writer at Tehsil Kaimganj. The investigation examined his involvement in the property transactions, including the participation of his clerk as a witness.

Following inquiry, the Initiating Officer passed an attachment order dated 19 March 2024 under Section 24(4)(a)(i). The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the attachment by its order dated 26 March 2025 under Section 26(3). The three appellants challenged that confirmation.

Appellants’ Arguments

The appellants contended that the Department had failed to establish that they provided consideration for the original purchases. They argued that allegations involving Yashveer Singh’s transactions with other persons could not establish a benami arrangement concerning these properties.

According to them, Yashveer Singh possessed ancestral agricultural land and earned sufficient agricultural income. They relied on cultivation records, his wife’s statement and claimed receipts from ancestral land sales aggregating to ₹6.83 lakh.

They also submitted that registered deeds and statements of persons connected with the purchases supported Yashveer Singh’s ownership.

Although Yashveer Singh had implicated the appellants in a statement dated 4 September 2023, he subsequently retracted it through replies and affidavits. The appellants maintained that the adverse statement was false and had been made under pressure.

Department’s Stand

The Department argued that the transactions satisfied Section 2(9)(A) because the properties stood in Yashveer Singh’s name while the appellants provided consideration and enjoyed the beneficial interest.

It relied on his sworn admission, alleged lack of independent financial capacity, the transaction pattern and subsequent transfers to the appellants’ family.

The Department also alleged that the arrangement sought to circumvent restrictions on transfers of Scheduled Caste land under the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006. Yashveer Singh belonged to the Scheduled Caste category, and the lands originally belonged to Scheduled Caste persons.

Subsequent Transfers Supported the Benami Finding

The Tribunal examined the purchase and transfer history of the three properties.

One property purchased in Yashveer Singh’s name for ₹1.30 lakh in October 2020 was subsequently transferred to Urmila Devi for ₹2 lakh in October 2023.

Another property purchased for ₹2.50 lakh in March 2021 was transferred to Sonam and Pawan Kumar for ₹1.50 lakh in October 2021. The Tribunal found that no plausible explanation had been offered for this reduction in consideration.

The third property, purchased for ₹1 lakh in May 2022, continued in Yashveer Singh’s name.

The Tribunal viewed these transactions collectively as supporting the Department’s case that the apparent ownership did not reflect the actual arrangement.

Bank Records Did Not Corroborate Independent Funding

The Tribunal examined Yashveer Singh’s State Bank of India account for the relevant period. It found no entries corroborating the claim that he had funded the purchases independently.

It specifically observed that neither debit nor credit entries substantiated the asserted purchase and subsequent sale of the properties from his own financial resources.

The Tribunal also relied on the Adjudicating Authority’s findings concerning the mismatch between his financial profile and property dealings. The claimed sources of funds were not accepted as adequately substantiated in the circumstances.

Retraction Did Not Displace Corroborated Admission

The Tribunal rejected reliance on Yashveer Singh’s subsequent denial. It found that the appellants had failed to explain convincingly why the retraction should be accepted or demonstrate circumstances establishing that the earlier adverse statement was false.

The admission was supported by the property transfers, financial records and surrounding circumstances. Consequently, the finding did not depend on an uncorroborated statement alone.

The Tribunal also considered the land-transfer restrictions as relevant context supporting its inference that the arrangement was designed to circumvent those restrictions.

Conclusion

The Tribunal dismissed all three appeals, leaving the attachment confirmation undisturbed.

The decision highlights the evidentiary significance of financial capacity, transaction history, subsequent family transfers and corroborated admissions in benami proceedings. On these facts, registered ownership and a later retraction were insufficient to rebut the material indicating that Yashveer Singh held the properties for the appellants’ benefit.

FULL TEXT OF THE ORIGINAL ORDER OF APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA

This Order disposes of the Appeals Nos. FPA-PBPT-197/KNP/2025 filed by Shri Pawan Kumar, FPA-PBPT-198/KNP/2025 filed by Smt. Urmila Devi and FPA-PBPT-199/KNP/2025 filed by Smt. Sonam, against the Order dated 26.03.2025 (Impugned Order) passed by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority, under Section 26 (3) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Act, 1988 (PBPTA), in Reference No. R-0329/PBPT/DLI/2024. The Impugned Order has confirmed the Provisional Attachment Order dated 19.03.2024 (PAO) passed under 24(4)(a)(i). The following properties total valued at Rs. 4,50,000/- were provisionally attached:

2. Ld. Counsel for the Appellants submitted that the Appellant Shri Pawan Kumar Beneficial Owner (BO) is a law graduate and he is engaged in providing services as an advocate and as deed writer for registration of documents such as sale/purchase deeds in Tehsil Kaimganj, District Farrukhabad since the year 2011. The Appellant Smt. Urmila is the mother and Smt. Sonam is the wife of Shri Pawan Kumar. The Appellants are the residents of House No. 51 Milkiya Papdi Khurd Bujurg, Farrukhabad along with Sh. Munim Singh father of Shri Pawan Kumar. The Appellants father Shri Munim Singh retired in the year 2018 from the Government Service and is having pension income, interest income and agriculture income from 28 bigha agricultural land. The Appellant Shri Pawan Kumar has agricultural land from which he is having rental income from a nursery and also agricultural income. The Appellant purchased the impugned properties. The Sale Deeds were duly executed and registered with the Sub-Registrar.

3. Ld. Counsel for the Appellants submitted that the Respondent department relied upon extraneous/ irrelevant material/ facts not pertaining to alleged impugned transactions/ properties. Allegations in general have been made against Sh. Yashveer Singh vis-a-vis Sh. Uday Veer Singh Yadav, Sh. Jitender Singh Yadav, Smt. Manju Lata Yadav, Sh. Narendra Singh Yadav, Sh. Raj Kumar, Sh. Nirottam Singh, Sh. Ratnakar Gangwar alias Dablu, etc. for entering into large number of benami transactions. The facts/ allegations against these persons are extraneous and not relevant to the Appellants. The impugned properties have no link/ nexus either with Sh. Uday Veer Singh, Sh. Jitender Singh Yadav, Smt. Manju Lata Yadav, Sh. Narendra Singh Yadav, Sh. Raj Kumar, Sh. Nirottam Singh, Sh. Ratnakar Gangwar alias Dablu, etc. or their alleged benami transactions. Ld. Counsel for the Appellants submitted that the Appellants had not paid or provided any consideration for purchase of the impugned properties, allegedly benami to Shri Yashveer Singh. The Respondent Department has not brought any cogent/tangible material or evidence on record to show that the Appellant has paid or provided the consideration for purchase of the impugned properties. Ld. Counsel for the Appellants submitted that based on the statements of people like Sh. Ishwar Dayal, Sh. Raj Kumar etc., it was alleged by the Respondent that Shri Yashveer Singh had no resources to purchase the above impugned properties. Shri Yashveer Singh had admitted on oath in a notarized affidavit that the impugned properties were purchased by him out of his own money/sources i.e. income from agricultural operations etc. sale consideration received on sale of some of ancestral agricultural land, household savings, consideration received on sale of soil (mitti) from the agricultural land etc. for his own benefit. He was always in possession of the impugned properties and the original sale deeds of the impugned properties were in his possession. He further stated that he had neither received any money from the Appellant for purchase of impugned properties nor did he hold them for the benefit of the Appellant.

4. Ld. Counsel for the Appellants submitted that Shri Yashveer Singh is the owner of more than 25 bigha ancestral agricultural land which is fertile and cultivated by him on regular basis. Shri Yashveer Singh in his statement dated 28.03.2023 under Section 19 of PBPTA and reply dated 18.05.2023, had stated that he is cultivating tobacco, sugarcane, mustard, wheat, corn, potato etc. and earned Rs. 7 to 8 lakhs every year and after payment of expenses, he saved Rs. 4 to 5 lakh every year. The replies along with affidavit filed by Shri Yashveer Singh before the Respondent were not considered while passing the PAO under Section 24(4)(a)(i) of PBPTA. Smt. Nidhi wife of Shri Yashveer Singh, in her statement on 24.03.2023 under Section 19 of PBPTA, in reply to question no. 7 to 10 categorically stated that her husband Sh. Yashveer Singh is engaged in agriculture operations. He has agricultural land 25 bigha approx. and is earning Rs. 4 to 5 lakh rupees every year from agriculture operations. He grew tobacco, wheat, corn, potato, mustard etc. She explained that crops are sold in Kaimganj Mandi and sometimes, traders buy agricultural products from their home. Thus, Smt. Nidhi not only categorically stated that Shri Yashveer Singh is doing agricultural operations, but she also stated where and how the agriculture produce/crop is sold by Shri Yashveer Singh. She further stated that they have ration card and are availing free ration every month and their total monthly expenses are Rs. 10,000/- per month. This clearly shows that Shri Yashveer Singh was doing agriculture operations, and he had agricultural income and had substantial saving from the same. Ld. Counsel for the Appellants submitted that a copy of fasali record “Intkhab Khasra” shows that on agricultural land owned by Shri Yashveer Singh and his father Sh. Shaym Singh S/o Sh. Ghurai, they were cultivating tobacco, rice, wheat, corn etc. He argued that this clearly showed that Shri Yashveer Singh was doing agricultural operations on his land and was having an income of at least Rs. 4 to 5 lakh every year as stated by him in his statement dated 28.03.2023, reply dated 18.05.2023 and independently confirmed by his wife Smt. Nidhi in her statement dated 24.03.2023 under Section 19 of PBPTA. Since agriculture income is exempt from income tax, he did not file ITRs. It is not mandatory to file an income tax return if your taxable income (excluding agricultural income) in a year is not more than threshold limit/ had not exceeded the maximum amount which is not chargeable to tax. Therefore, if Shri Yashveer Singh had not filed ITR, he was not statutorily required to do so. It cannot be concluded that he had no income including agriculture income. Further, if Shri Yashveer Singh had income above threshold which was liable to income tax and he had not filed ITR, then it can lead to adverse consequences under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. But it cannot be inferred that the consideration for purchase of impugned properties was paid or provided by the Appellant. Ld. Counsel for the Appellants submitted that the income of Shri Yashveer Singh from agriculture operations cannot be taken as nil for the only reason that he could not produce bills for sale of crop. The fact that he had ancestral agricultural land and he was doing agricultural operations and had agricultural income, is proved from copy of land record, fasal record “Intkhab Khasra” etc. Shri Yashveer Singh in reply to question no. 9 of his statement dated 28.03.2023, as well as in reply dated 18.05.2023, stated that he had an agriculture income of Rs. 4 to 5 lakhs every year and his wife Smt. Nidhi in her statement dated 24.03.2023 (which is prior to the statement of Shri Yashveer Singh) had also stated that he had an agriculture income of Rs. 4 to 5 lakh every year. He sold crop in Kaimganj Mandi and sometime, traders bought crops from their home. Further, several witnesses such as Sh. Ishwar Dayal, Sh. Raj Kumar, Sh. Geeta Nand have confirmed in their statements under Section 19 of PBPTA that Shri Yashveer Singh was doing agriculture operations.

5. Ld. Counsel for the Appellants submitted that Shri Yashveer Singh inherited agricultural lands from his father Late Sh. Shyam Singh including rakba 0.5020 hec. in khata no. 131, khasra/ gata no. 124 village Nibalpur, Pargana Shamsabad Paschim, Tehsil Kaimganj, Farrukabad. Out of this ancestral agricultural land in khasra no. 124, Shri Yashveer Singh sold rakba 0.2510 hec. to Smt. Nishi Kumar w/o Sh. Manoj Kumar for Rs. 3,90,000/- and received the entire payment in advance in cash. The sale deed was registered on 12.10.2020. Shri Yashveer Singh inherited agricultural lands from his father Late Sh. Shyam Singh including rakba 0.348 hec. in khata no. 131, khasra/ gata no. 83 Gram Nibalpur, Pargana Shamsabad Paschim, Tehsil Kaimganj, Farrukabad. Out of this ancestral agricultural land, Shri Yashveer Singh sold rakba 0.174 hec. to Sh. Satendra Kumar s/o Sh. Ram Kripa for Rs. 2,93,000/- and received the entire payment in advance in cash. The sale deed was registered on 19.08.2021. It is clear that Shri Yashveer Singh had cash of Rs. 6,83,000/-received on sale of some of his ancestral agricultural lands. He had yearly earnings of Rs. 4 to 5 lakhs from agricultural operations during the relevant year/ period when he purchased three impugned properties, for total sale consideration of Rs. 4,80,000/-. Shri Yashveer Singh had sufficient funds available with him at the relevant time of purchase of three impugned properties.

6. Ld. Counsel for the Appellants submitted that the statement dated 30.8.2022 recorded on oath under Section 19 of PBPTA, Sh. Geeta Nand, who is seller of impugned property, wherein he confirmed that he sold his agricultural land to Shri Yashveer Singh and he received sale consideration from him. This shows that the seller of impugned property confirmed on oath that property was sold by him to Shri Yashveer Singh. As regards the statement of Sh. Geeta Nand stating that consideration was received in cash through Suraj, no adverse inference can be drawn because, Sh. Geeta Nand in reply to question 15 stated that property was sold through Suraj and if Shri Yashveer Singh made payment through Suraj, there is nothing wrong to draw adverse inference. As regards minor differences in facts stated by them, it can happen due to the lapse of time. The moot point to be noted from perusal of statements of Shri Geeta Nand and Shri Suraj is that none of them had stated that Appellant had made the payment of sale consideration to seller Sh. Geeta Nand. Thus, the allegation by Respondent that Appellant had purchased the impugned property benami in the name of Shri Yashveer Singh and Appellant paid the sale consideration, is a baseless assumption and conjecture. The statement of Geeta Nand and Suraj proves that sale consideration was paid or provided by the Appellant.

7. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the statement dated 30.8.2022 recorded under Section 19 of PBPTA, Sh. Mayank Mishra, Advocate, who is deed writer as well as one of the witnesses of sale deed of impugned property, confirmed that he was the deed writer of the sale deed by which Sh. Gaya Prasad, Sh. Change Lal, Sh. Govind and Sh. Jai Prakash sold their property to Shri Yashveer Singh. The sellers of impugned property contacted him for execution of sale deed and sale consideration was paid by Shri Yashveer Singh in his presence. Thus, the allegation by Respondent that Appellant had purchased the impugned property benami in the name of Shri Yashveer Singh and Appellant paid the consideration, are baseless assumptions and conjectures. Further as regards the discrepancy in the statement of Shri Mayank Mishra about payment of sale consideration and in the sale deed, it was submitted that Shri Mayank Mishra had remembered that the money was paid before him, but he did not remember the amount. Firstly, it was possible that a substantial amount of consideration had been paid to the seller prior to the date of sale deed and some amount was paid on the day of the registry. Secondly, the sale deed clearly states before witnesses that the seller had received entire sale consideration in instalments. It is pertinent to mention that perusal of statements of Sh. Dalveer Singh, Smt. Vimla Devi, Sh. Ishwar Dayal etc. show that they stated that sale consideration in respect of a large number of properties, was paid by other alleged beneficial owners Yadavs involved in other references. But there was no adverse statement by any witness against the Appellant and his family i.e. his mother Smt. Urmila Devi and wife Smt. Sonam Singh alleging purchase of impugned properties by them or payment of sale consideration for purchase of the above impugned properties by them.

8. Ld. Counsel for the Appellants submitted that from the statements recorded under Section 19 of PBPTA, and the documents placed on record, it is clear that Shri Yashveer Singh himself purchased the impugned properties on payment of sale consideration out of his own sources/income which has been affirmed by him on notarized affidavit and in the reply filed by him before the Respondent and Ld. AA. The Respondent has not brought any cogent/tangible material or evidence to prove that Appellants paid or provided the consideration or they purchased the impugned properties benami in the name of Shri Yashveer Singh. Ld. Counsel for the Appellants submitted that it is pertinent to mention that the Appellant is a deed writer in Kaimganj Tehsil where sale deeds for purchase of all three impugned properties were registered. Sale deed for purchase of impugned property by Shri Yashveer Singh from Sh. Gaya Prasad and others was prepared and presented for registration by Sh. Mayank Mishra, advocate which was confirmed by him in his statement recorded on 16.08.2023 under Section 19 of PBPTA. Sh. Mayank Mishra, on being asked about knowledge of facts about real beneficial owner of impugned property, said that he had no knowledge of any third person being the real beneficial owner of the impugned property. The statement of Sh. Mayank Mishra is of substance and clearly shows that Shri Yashveer Singh is the real purchaser of impugned property for his own benefit. Ld. Counsel for the Appellants submitted that statement of Shri Yashveer Singh under Section19 of PBPTA was recorded on 04.09.2023, in which he stated that a large number of properties were purchased in his name and considerations for the said properties were paid by someone else. He also stated that the three impugned properties were purchased by Appellant. The said statement of Shri Yashveer Singh is false, malicious, misleading, motivated and was retracted by him. In the initial first statement dated 28.03.2023 Shri Yashveer Singh admitted that impugned properties were purchased by him from his own sources. But during statement dated 04.09.2023, when he was confronted by the Respondent with statements of several witnesses who had given statements confirming purchase of a large number of lands by Yadav etc. in his name, that he had not filed income tax returns declaring his income/ transactions, he maliciously made a false and contradictory statement, stating that the above three impugned properties were purchased by the Appellant. The reply and affidavit dated 07.03.2024 and 20.03.2024 filed by Shri Yashveer Singh before the Respondent, stated that he gave false statement on 04.09.2023 under pressure wherein he falsely stated that aforesaid three impugned properties were purchased by Appellant. Shri Yashveer Singh retracted his statement qua above three impugned properties. The Respondent has not disclosed in respect of which of the impugned property, which Appellant is alleged as beneficial owner. When, how, where alleged beneficial owner paid or provided towards sale consideration for purchase of property by Shri Yashveer Singh. As per SCN and PAO, the allegation is that Appellant purchased impugned properties in the name of Shri Yashveer Singh and paid the consideration. However, perusal of SCN, PAO, Reference read with RUD reveal that neither any facts are disclosed by the Respondent department showing satisfaction of conditions of Section 2(9)(A) of PBPTA nor there is any allegation that Smt. Urmila Devi and/or Smt. Sonam Singh have purchased the impugned properties in the name of Shri Yashveer Singh or paid or provided the consideration to him for purchase of impugned properties. The Appellant therefore pleaded to allow the Appeals.

9. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the proceedings in this case were initiated taking cognizance of the information that huge parcels of land were purchased in the name of Shri Yashveer Singh by the Appellant and his family members. The property under consideration originally belonged to members of schedule caste. The Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 imposes restrictions on transfer of land belonging to members of Scheduled Caste persons to other than those belonging to Scheduled Castes. Special permission is required from the District Magistrate under the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code 2006 for transfer of land belonging to person of Schedule Caste to Non-Scheduled Caste person. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent submitted that Shri Yashveer Singh is a person of meager means and belongs to the scheduled caste category. The lands under consideration are transferred to the name of Shri Yashveer Singh vide registration deeds. Acquisition of the Impugned lands by the Appellant and his family member in the name of Shri Yashveer Singh was for defeating provisions of Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code 2006 and to make profits, after selling the same, which constitute benami transaction as per Section 2(9)(A) of PBPTA. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent submitted that Ld. AA held that the Initiating Officer had invoked Section 2(9)(A) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, which defines a benami transaction as one where a property is transferred to or held by a person, but the consideration for such property has been provided by another person, and the property is held for the immediate or future benefit of the person providing such consideration. The essential ingredients of this definition are (i) the transfer or holding of property by the benamidar for the benefit of the beneficial owner, and (ii) the flow of consideration from the beneficial owner to the original seller. In the instant case, both these conditions stand satisfied since the property is held in the name of Shri Yashveer Singh, while the consideration was provided by the Appellant Shri Pawan Kumar, Smt. Urmila Devi and Smt. Sonam, for their immediate or future benefit. Accordingly, the properties constitute benami property, the transactions in question amount to benami transactions, Shri Yashveer Singh is the benamidar, and the Appellants are the beneficial owners. Accordingly, Ld. AA confirmed the PAO dated 19.03.2024 under Section 24(4) of the PBPTA of the I.O. vide its Order dated 26.03.2025 under Section 26(3) of PBPTA, holding the property to be Benami Property, title holder thereof i.e., Shri Yashveer Singh to be Benamidar and the Appellants to be Beneficial Owners and further directed that the property shall not be transferred or otherwise dealt with, in any manner, except with the prior permission. The Ld. AA after detailed examination of the evidence, statements of witnesses, financial analysis, and conduct of the parties, has fairly held that the three immovable properties worth Rs. 4,80,000/- are benami properties.

10. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the narration of the Appellant regarding his educational background, profession as a deed writer, family status, residence and income of his father are wholly irrelevant to the adjudication of the benami issue. The PBPT Act focuses on the nature of transaction, flow of consideration, and beneficial enjoyment of property. The personal profile of the Appellant or his family cannot substitute the mandatory requirement of demonstrating lawful sources of funds or rebutting the Department’s findings under Section 2(9)(A) of PBPTA. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent submitted that issuance of Show Cause Notice dated 26.12.2023 was based on specific findings regarding financial incapacity of the benamidar, pattern of transactions, and admission of Shri Yashveer Singh in his sworn statement dated 04.09.2023, which clearly established the involvement of the Appellant and his family as beneficial owners. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the order under Section 24(4)(a)(i) of PBPTA dated 19.03.2024 was passed after marshalling facts, examining witness statements, analyzing bank and revenue records, and considering the replies of all Noticees. The finding that the three transactions aggregating to Rs. 4,80,000/- fall within the ambit of Section 2(9)(A) of PBPTA is fully supported by evidence. The Appellant, his mother, and his wife were rightly held to be beneficial owners under Section 2(12) of PBPTA, while Shri Yashveer Singh was held to be benamidar under Section 2(10) of PBPTA. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the allegation that the Initiating Officer (IO) has not specified which family member is linked to which property is misleading. The IO’s case is that the Appellant and his family collectively acted as beneficial owners, with Shri Yashveer Singh as ostensible holder. The exact trifurcation is immaterial when the arrangement itself is collusive and designed to evade the law. The IO’s analysis showed a mismatch between alleged income and actual financial profile. The detailed PAO passed by the IO, after marshalling facts, conducting thorough enquiry, and granting adequate opportunity of hearing in keeping with the principles of natural justice, is a testimony to the fact that the onus of proving the transaction as benami has been adequately discharged. The Ld. Adjudicating Authority, after reviewing all the material and giving the Appellant ample opportunity to present his case, confirmed the attachment.

11. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the Appellant’s reliance on fasali records (Intkhab Khasra) only show that land is recorded under cultivation, but do not establish actual income or availability of funds for purchase of the impugned properties. No mandi receipts, crop sale bills, or banking transactions have been produced to substantiate the alleged earnings of Rs. 4 to 5 lakhs per year. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent submitted that in rural areas farmers often take odd jobs or keep cattle to supplement income does not establish financial capacity for the purchase of immovable properties worth lakhs of rupees. The burden lies on the Appellant to establish legitimate sources of funds, which has not been discharged. Shri Yashveer Singh asserted that he sold 0.2510 hectares of ancestral and (Khasra 124) to Smt. Nishi Kumar for Rs. 3,90,000/- registered on 12.10.2020. There is no evidence that the proceeds were actually available for making payments, nor he has provided bank statements or any verifiable financial documentation. He further, claims to have sold 0.174 hectares of ancestral land (Khasra 83) to Shri Satendra Kumar for Rs. 2,93,000/- registered on 19.08.2021 but has failed to demonstrate receipt and utilization of these funds. The total claimed cash inflow is fragmented and, in the absence of supporting documentary evidence, cannot be considered sufficient to cover the consideration for the impugned properties. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the Appellant claims that Shri Yashveer Singh had generated cash from ancestral land sales which amounted to Rs. 6,83,000/- and that his annual agricultural income was Rs. 4 to 5 lakhs, which would cover the total consideration of the three impugned properties (Rs. 4,80,000/-). These claims are self-declared, unsupported, and inconsistent with the available financial records. There is no corroborative evidence demonstrating that the funds were available at the relevant time. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent submitted that Shri Yashveer Singh had claimed additional sources of funds from the sale of soil (mitti) from the impugned land, supported by photographs. The photographs alone do not constitute evidence of financial capacity or actual receipt of funds. No receipts, bank credits, or market records have been furnished to substantiate these claims. The circumstantial evidence, including statements recorded under oath, clearly indicates that the financial source for the purchase of the impugned properties was the Beneficial Owners (Shri Pawan Kumar and family), and Shri Yashveer Singh acted merely as an ostensible owner (Benamidar).

12. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the statements of third parties (Sh. Raj Kumar, Smt. Parwati, Sh. Ishwar Dayal, etc.) about the financial status of Shri Yashveer Singh though described as hearsay by the Appellant, are relevant circumstantial evidence under the PBPTA. These statements, combined with other documentary evidence and admissions of Shri Yashveer Singh, indicate that he lacked independent financial capacity to purchase the impugned properties. The statement of Shri Geeta Nand clearly establishes that the transaction was routed through an intermediary (Suraj) and that consideration was received in cash. The use of such intermediaries is a common feature in benami arrangements to conceal the true source of funds. The statement of Sh. Geeta Nand, seller of property, confirming receipt of consideration from the Appellant (possibly via Suraj), does not exclude the possibility that the Appellant (Beneficial Owner) provided the funds indirectly. Circumstantial evidence, coupled with Appellant’s bank records and financial profile, supports that the Appellant provided the funds, reinforcing the Benami nature of the transaction. Absence of adverse statements against the Appellants family members does not undermine the evidence against Shri Yashveer Singh. The Respondent’s financial incapacity, admissions, and circumstantial evidence collectively demonstrate that the impugned properties were purchased with funds provided by the Appellant, confirming the Benami arrangement. The statements of witnesses regarding payments in other references are merely corroborative of the pattern of Benami transactions, and Shri Yashveer Singh’s own admissions, coupled with documentary and financial evidence, clearly demonstrate that the Appellant (Beneficial Owner) provided the consideration for the purchase of the impugned properties. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the statement dated 04.09.2023 of Shri Yashveer Singh recorded under Section 19 of PBPTA, wherein he admitted that the impugned properties were purchased by the Appellant and his family members in his name, was given on oath before the Initiating Officer carries high evidentiary value, whereas the subsequent replies and affidavit dated 07.03.2024 and 20.03.2024 retracting the said statement are clearly afterthoughts without any contemporaneous complaint of coercion and thus lack credibility. The alleged contradictions about transfer of property are immaterial since the fact remains that the Appellant himself submitted that properties stood in his name and later transferred to family members of the Appellant which only fortify the benami arrangement, particularly when Section 6 of PBPTA prohibits retransfer of benami property. Further the plea that the Appellant purchased the properties out of agricultural income, ancestral land sale, or soil sale proceeds is wholly unsubstantiated as no cogent documentary evidence such as bank statements, sale deeds of ancestral land, or income tax returns were ever produced to prove financial capacity, and mere oral assertions cannot outweigh the sworn statement dated 04.09.2023 corroborated by the statements of several independent witnesses who confirmed that Shri Yashveer Singh and his associates routinely purchased properties in his name. Therefore, the retraction has no evidentiary value and the cumulative material on record conclusively establishes that the impugned properties are benami in nature, beneficially owned by the Appellant and his family members. The Respondent pleaded to dismiss the Appeals.

13. We have considered the rival submissions and the material on record. The IO has provisionally attached on 19.03.2024 under Section 24(4)(a)(i) of PBPTA, the three properties as listed in the Table in Paragraph 1 of this Order. The inquiry conducted by the IO into the financial profile of Sh. Yashveer Singh and his statement recorded on 04.09.2023 under Section 19 of PBPTA reveal that the said three properties had been purchased in the name of Shri Yashveer Singh. The first of these properties of 0.04562 hectares was sold by Shri Sanjay Kumar and others for the consideration of Rs. 1,30,000/-, for which registration was done on 09.10.2020. The second of these properties measuring 0.041 hectares was sold by Shri Geeta Nand for the consideration of Rs. 1,00,000/- for which registration was done on 10.05.2022. The third of these properties measuring 0.0956 hectares was sold by Shri Gaya Prasad and others for the consideration of Rs. 2,50,000/- for which registration was done on 06.03.2021. The IO found that Shri Yashveer Singh did not have financial resources to fund such purchases. The statement dated 30.08.2022 of Shri Geeta Nand reveal that for the registration of the property measuring 0.041 hectares the deed writer and the witness to the deed was Shri Pawan Kumar, the Appellant herein. For the two properties sold by Shri Geeta Nand and Shri Sanjay Kumar, the witness to the registration deeds of both the properties was Shri Suraj Singh a clerk of Shri Pawan Kumar, the Appellant herein. The IO having reasons to believe had issued Show Cause Notice (SCN) under Section 24(1) and Section 24 (2) of PBPTA on 26.12.2023 and subsequently issued the PAO under Section 24 (3) of the PBPTA on 28.12.2023. In view of the inquires conducted including examination of financial profile and recording of statements, the IO passed the PAO under Section 24 (4)(a)(i) of PBPTA on 19.03.2024. Shri Yashveer Singh revealed that though these properties were in his name, these were actually owned by the Appellants Shri Pawan Kumar, his wife Smt. Sonam and his mother Smt. Urmila Devi. We further observe from the Table in Paragraph 1 of this Order that the two properties which were purchased in the name of Shri Yashveer Singh were subsequently sold to the family members of Shri Pawan Kumar Appellant herein. The property measuring 0.04562 hectares having been shown as purchased by Shri Yashveer Singh on 09.10.2020 for Rs. 1,30,000/- was found to have been bought by Smt. Urmila Devi, mother of Shri Pawan Kumar on 20.10.2023 for consideration of Rs. 2,00,000/-. The property measuring 0.0956 hectares which was bought in the name of Shri Yashveer Singh on 06.03.2021 for consideration of Rs. 2,50,000/- was found to be sold to Smt. Sonam and Shri Pawan Kumar on 20.10.2021 for consideration of Rs. 1,50,000/-. It is only the third property measuring 0.041 hectares which bought in the name of Shri Yashveer Singh for Rs. 1,00,000/- on 10.05.2022 that remained with Shri Yashveer Singh. The aforementioned transactions in themselves show their dubious nature. We observe that the property measuring 0.0956 hectares lost its value from Rs. 2,50,000/- to Rs. 1,50,000/- for which no plausible explanation has been offered. The mere transfer in the names of Smt. Sonam, wife of Shri Pawan Kumar, and in the name of Shri Pawan Kumar with such decline in value could have only been plausible if the property was already in the name of the said persons. The Sale Deed which is part of the record shows the transfer. It is also noteworthy that the property measuring 0.041 hectares remained in the name of Shri Yashveer Singh. We have also examined the copies of the bank account for the relevant period of Shri Yashveer Singh relating to his account in State Bank of India and we do not find any entry in the said account which can corroborate the said transactions having been funded by Shri Yashveer Singh.

14. In this regard, we cite the following critical findings made by the Ld. Competent Authority in Paragraphs 5.5.2 and 5.5.3.1 of the Impugned Order:

“5.5.2 The crux of the submissions of the defendant D-1 (Shri Yashveer Singh) is that the transaction under question is a fair transaction, whereas D-1 has no financial capacity. On perusal of the property transactions, it emanated that D-1 works as a labourer. His residence was also allotted by the Govt. under “Sarkari Awaas Yojna”. This goes a long way to establish that D-1 never had the financial wherewithal to purchase the Benami Property, besides being a non-filer of ITR. D-1 has although claimed that he had income of about Rs. 8 lakh per annum by his own admission and about Rs. 4 to 4.5 lakh per annum as per his wife’s statement but he never filed ITR claiming that there was no need to file ITR as his income was below the threshold for filing ITR. However, contention of D-1 is found not to be correct since threshold income for filing ITR for year under reference was as Rs. 2,50,000/-. Hence, D-1 was required to file ITR, while he failed to do.

xxxxx

5.5.3.1 With regard to financial creditworthiness of D- 1, it is seen that he is a non-filer of income tax and has no financial capacity. On perusal of the property transactions, it emanated that D-1 identifies himself as a small farmer with an annual income of 7-8 lakhs rupees and claims not to file ITR. However, he has been involved in significant land transactions, which are disproportionate to his declared income and financial capacity. This discrepancy raises questions about the actual source of funds for these transactions. During the course of departmental proceedings before the IO, D-1 has accepted that the impugned properties, initially registered under his name, were effectively under the control or later transferred to Shri Pawan Kumar and his family members i.e. D-2 to D-4. Shri Yashveer Singh admits that the financial considerations and obligations related to the properties’ purchase and registration were managed by Shri Pawan Kumar and his family members i.e. D-2 to D-4. This admission is a key feature of benami transactions, where the BD is the titular owner, but the BOs are responsible for the financial aspects. These admissions by D-1 proved a complex network of property transactions where he served as the ostensible owner while the actual ownership and financial responsibilities lay with the others. The involvement of coercion and the lack of the genuine consent in these transactions raise serious concerns under the PBPT Act. D-1 has categorically stated that, despite the properties being registered under his name he is not the bona fide owner. D-1 has accentuated that his name and caste have been utilized in the property deeds. In this case, the BD acted as per the directions of the BO and BD acted as real owner in front of third parties including the registration authorities. It is a fact established beyond doubt that the BD never really wished to purchase the property but he was influenced by the BO in this case. Accordingly, when, IO had issued Show Cause Notice dated 26.12.2023, D-1 framed a new story to avoid the proceedings of Benami and retracted from his own statement recorded on oath. However, D-1 had already stated in his statement recorded on oath by IO on 04.09.2023 that Pawan Kumar and his family (D-2 to D-4) are the real possessors of the properties registered under his name. Further, the fact that properties in question initially purchased in the name of D-1 were transferred to Pawan Kumar’s wife and mother, coupled with one property still being in the name of D-1, clearly proved a pattern of transactions that are characteristic of benami arrangements. The D-1 has also failed to substantiate the source of income for purchase of impugned lands with supporting documentary evidences. However, he has been involved in significant land transactions, which are disproportionate to his declared income and financial capacity. Further, wife of D-1 has also described his modest lifestyle, with a monthly expenditure of about Rs. 10,000/- and no significant assets other than a motor cycle……….”

On perusal of these findings made by the Ld. Competent Authority, we find that our inference about the bank accounts not showing the entries as to explain the purchase of the three Impugned Properties from the financial resources of Shri Yashveer Singh are supported and corroborated. To be specific there are neither debit entries nor credit entries as to substantiate the contention that the properties were purchased and then sold by Shri Yashveer Singh from his own financial resources.

15. We take note of the fact that the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 did not permit the transfer or sale of immovable property belonging to persons of Scheduled Caste to persons of other categories. It therefore follows that in the face of such prohibition a well thought strategy needed to be formulated on the part of the Appellants to circumvent the provisions of the Code in Order to acquire the impugned properties. Subsequently, denial of his earlier statement by Shri Yashveer Singh will not come to his rescue because of lack of any explanation and circumstances as to establish the falsehood of his initial statements. We also note that the pleadings of the Appellants are almost entirely couched in terms of the subsequent denials by Shri Yashveer Singh. However, the Appellants have miserably failed to demonstrate the reasons that why the denial by Shri Yashveer Singh should be accepted. In fact, as already discussed that initial statements of Shri Yashveer Singh are well corroborated as to infer that Sh. Yashveer Singh had truthfully stated that he acted at the behest of Shri Pawan Kumar.

16. In view of the aforementioned discussions and analysis, we dismiss the Appeals Nos. FPA-PBPT-197/KNP/2025 filed by Shri Pawan Kumar, FPA-PBPT-198/KNP/2025 filed by Smt. Urmila Devi and FPA-PBPT-199/KNP/2025 filed by Smt. Sonam. Applications pending, if any, are disposed of accordingly.