Case Law Details
Shri Akashdeep Vs Manpreet Estates LLP (Appellate Tribunal For PBPT Act)
It is correct that after amendment in Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 (PBPT Act) , the onus of proving a benami transaction rests entirely on the shoulders of the respondents. Before amendment, the burden of proof was on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the Benamidar and beneficial owner. Once both are able to discharge their burden of proof as per amended law, then the burden of proof would be shifted to the prosecution. In the present case, the respondents were able to discharge their initial burden of proof by producing the sale deeds and document pertaining to the loan amount and respondent no. 1 was also the promoter of respondent no. 2, no even prima contrary evidence is proved by the appellant. Thus, in the facts of present case and documentary evidence proved, the onus of proving a benami transaction rests entirely on the shoulders of the IO who is making the charge. The burden of proof shall shift to the person who is taking contrary of within the meaning of section 91 and 92 of the Evidences Act, 1972.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR PBPT ACT
1. The Appellant has filed an appeal against impugned order dated 24.10.2018 passed under Section 26(3) of the PBPT Act arising out of Reference No. 198/17 filed by the Initiating Office upon information received from Investigation Directorate, Mumbai as the I.O, Mumbai, BPU-2, on the basis of information received from Investigating Directorate, Mumbai proceeded with reference whereby it was contended that the respondent no.1 is benamidar as actual benefits from the immovable property held by it accrued or would accrue to the respondent no. 2.
2. As per the case of appellant, Manpreet Estates LLP is the Benamidar and RKW Developers Private Limited is the beneficial owner.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
