Jagdish Kumar M. Gupta Vs Initiating Officer (Appellate Tribunal Under SAFEMA Delhi)
SAFEMA Tribunal Upholds Benami Attachment Because Flats Were Registered in Third-Party Names; Holding Property in Another’s Name After 2016 Amendment Attracts Benami Law; SAFEMA Tribunal Says Benami Law Applies When Consideration Is Paid by Another Person; Gift Deeds Supporting Return of Property Strengthened Benami Case: SAFEMA Tribunal; SAFEMA Tribunal Rejects Argument That Unconstructed Flats Cannot Be Benami Property; Pre-2016 Property Transactions Can Still Fall Under Amended Benami Law; SAFEMA Tribunal Dismisses Appeal Because Property Was Held for Purchaser’s Future Benefit.
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal Under SAFEMA challenged the order dated 11 September 2024 passed by the Adjudicating Authority confirming the Provisional Attachment Order (PAO) under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988.
The appellant contended that the transaction in question did not constitute a benami transaction. It was submitted that the appellant intended to purchase four flats in a proposed building project named “Prathamesh Galaxy” and that allotment letters were issued by the developer, M/s Sailee Developers, on 24 July 2002 and 26 January 2003 in the appellant’s name. The appellant claimed that consideration for the flats was paid by him and disclosed during a survey conducted under Section 133A of the Income-tax Act. According to the appellant, additional income of ₹1.71 crore was declared across different financial years, which included the cost of the four flats and stamp duty. A sum of ₹49.51 lakh was disclosed towards payment for the flats, apart from ₹5.71 lakh towards stamp duty.
