Smt. Santosh 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 confirming attachment of the appellant’s bank account to the extent of Rs. 5,00,000, while releasing attached immovable properties.
The proceedings originated after the Deputy Director of Income Tax informed the Initiating Officer that a bank account maintained by M/s Shyama Trading Company had been used for deposit of demonetized currency amounting to Rs. 30,00,000, which was subsequently transferred to several accounts, including that of the appellant. Shri Ghanshyam Patel, proprietor of M/s Shyama Trading Company, stated during search proceedings that the transactions were conducted by another individual using pre-signed cheques and that the deposited amounts did not belong to him. Based on the material available, the Initiating Officer formed a belief that Shri Ghanshyam Patel was a benamidar and that Rs. 5,00,000 transferred to the appellant constituted benami property under the PBPT Act.
The appellant replied that the amount received from M/s Shyama Trading Company had already been declared under the Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Yojna, 2016 (PMGKY). She stated that she had surrendered the amount, paid tax, surcharge and penalty under the scheme, and filed the prescribed declaration form.
