Smt. Priti Agarwal Vs Initiating Officer (Appellate Tribunal Under SAFEMA Delhi)
Benami Transaction Proved by Direct Payment & Future Benefit: SAFEMA Tribunal Upholds Attachment
The Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA, New Delhi in Smt. Priti Agarwal & Shri Sameer Agarwal vs. Initiating Officer, BPU, Kanpur (FPA-PBPT-01 & 02/KNP/2024, final order dated 10-12-2025) upheld the provisional attachment orders under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, holding that the essential ingredients of a benami transaction u/s 2(9)(A) stood fully established.
In the case of Smt. Priti Agarwal, Tribunal found that:
- Entire consideration for purchase of agricultural land was paid directly by her to the sellers, while the sale deed stood in the name of Shri Shiv Shankar, a person of no financial means and a domestic help.
- No money ever flowed through the benamidar’s bank account at the time of purchase; his account itself was opened much later.
- After conversion of land to non-agricultural use and plotting, sale proceeds were largely credited to Priti Agarwal’s bank account, establishing future benefit to the real owner.
- Statements of the benamidar and sellers, coupled with bank statements and sale deeds, clearly satisfied both limbs of section 2(9)(A) — payment of consideration by another person & benefit accruing to that person.
The Tribunal rejected the plea that denial of cross-examination vitiated proceedings, holding that cross-examination is not an absolute right, especially where ample opportunities were given and overwhelming documentary evidence existed. It also upheld attachment of ₹97.36 lakh under section 26(5), clarifying that separate show-cause notice was not mandatory once the Adjudicating Authority forms belief during proceedings.
In the case of Shri Sameer Agarwal, though he was not directly involved in purchase, Tribunal noted that he received ₹4.98 lakh from the benamidar out of sale proceeds, duly supported by banking trail. Attachment was therefore sustained to the extent of proceeds received, applying the principle that any recipient of benami proceeds is liable for attachment.
Accordingly, both appeals were dismissed, reaffirming that direct payment of consideration, lack of financial capacity of benamidar, and flow-back of sale proceeds are decisive tests for benami transactions, and mere technical objections cannot defeat substantive evidence.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA AT NEW DELHI
