Smt. Ranjana Roy Vs Initiating Officer (Appellate Tribunal Under SAFEMA Delhi)
The Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA, New Delhi, decided an appeal challenging the order dated 28.02.2019 passed by the Adjudicating Authority under Section 26(3) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 (PBPTA). The Adjudicating Authority had confirmed a Provisional Attachment Order dated 17.02.2018, whereby jewellery weighing 2465.60 grams was attached as alleged benami property.
The Appellant contended that there was no benami transaction and that the attachment was based on conjectures and surmises. It was argued that the Initiating Officer failed to establish the existence of benami property with cogent material. The Appellant submitted that the source of the jewellery had been fully explained and that in the absence of identification of a valid beneficial owner, the proceedings could not be sustained. It was also submitted that the alleged beneficial owner had stated that the jewellery was purchased from M/s Senco Gold, disclosed to the Department, and subjected to tax.
The Respondent Department argued that the Appellant and one Shri Animesh Banerjee had visited the showroom of M/s Senco Gold in November 2016 and allegedly paid Rs. 2 crores as advance during the post-demonetisation period. Bills were reportedly prepared in the names of various customers. During a search conducted on 29.12.2016 at the Appellant’s residence under the Income Tax Act, jewellery weighing 3567.97 grams was found, of which 2465.60 grams was seized. The Department alleged that the seized jewellery was obtained from Senco Gold and that the Appellant was a benamidar while Shri Animesh Banerjee was the beneficial owner. The Adjudicating Authority had rejected the Appellant’s explanation as an afterthought and confirmed the attachment.
