APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA AT NEW DELHI MP-PBPT-293/CHD/2019 Stay FPA-PBPT-384/CHD/2019 M J Gold Pvt. Ltd. … Appellant Versus The Initiating Officer, BPU, Chandigarh … Respondent Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared For the Appellant : Mr. Vijay Pal Dalmia, Adv.

Mr. Aditya Dhar, Adv.

Mr. Ankush Mangal, Adv.

For the Respondent : Mr. Manmeet S. Arora, SPP Mr. Yash Batra, Adv.

CORAM SHRI G.C. MISHRA : MEMBER SHRI BALESH KUMAR : MEMBER

FINAL ORDER

25.02.2025 This Order disposes of the Appeal No FPA-PBPT-

384/CHD/2019 which has been filed by M/s MJ Gold Private Ltd. (“Appellant”) under Section 46 of The Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 (“PBPTA”) against the Order dated 28.01.2019 (“Impugned Order”)of the Ld. Adjudicating Authority in Reference No. R-407/2018. M/s MJ Gold Private Ltd. was identified as a “Beneficial Owner” by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority within the definition of Section 2(12).

2. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant stated that the present Appeal has been preferred to challenge the Impugned Order dated 28.01.2019, whereby, Ld. Adjudicating Authority had allowed the Reference No. 407/2018, and upheld the Provisional Attachment Order dated 22.12.2017 (“PAO”) passed under Section 24(4)(a)(i) and 24(4)(b)(i) of PBPTA. The subject property of the Reference, that is, assets in Balance Sheet of the Appellant/Beneficial Owner to the extent of Rs. 51,70,000/- including Bank Accounts (whichever could be traced out) was held as Benami Property under Section 2(8) of the PBPTA. Ld. Counsel stated that pursuant to PAO dated 22.12.2017, the Bank Account of the Appellant/Beneficial Owner with Punjab National Bank (“PNB”) maintained at Dibai Branch, District Bulandshhar, Uttar Pradesh, Pin 202393 bearing Account NO. 0633008700002577 to the extent of Rs. 51,50,000/- have been attached.

3. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant pleaded that the Ld. Adjudicating Authority had wrongly confirmed the Provisional Attachment Order on an erroneous interpretation of law and facts. Ld. Counsel argued that based on the facts of the case and provisions of PBPTA, the only reasonable inference which could have been drawn is that the Appellant is not a Beneficial Owner within the import of Section 2(12) of the PBPTA. Further, the Appellant was not engaged in Benami Transactions as defined under Section

2(9)(A) of the PBPTA.

4. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant pleaded that the Appellant was involved in a genuine transaction for the sale of Gold Bars with the M/s Rishi Hardware, Proprietor, Sh. Amit Kumar Verma (“Fictitious Benamidar/ Benamidar No. 1”) under the directions of one Sh. Ashwani Kapoor (Benamidar No. 2). The Appellant sold gold bars to M/s Rishi Hardware vide Bill No. MC/16-17/63 dated 20.12.2016 for a sum of Rs. 30,20,003/-, against which a total sum of Rs. 30,20,000/- was received through banking channels, and Rs. 3/- was written off as unrecoverable. The amount of Rs 21,50,000/-, which was received by the Appellant through banking channels on 30.11.2016 from the account of M/s Rishi Hardware was adjusted in the account of Sh. Ashwani Kapoor, who claimed the same as belonging to him.

5. Ld. Counsel argued that the Appellant was not bound to conduct any due diligence to ascertain the true identity of the parties involved in the sale of the gold bars, as the Appellant had received the money through Banking channels, i.e., RTGS. Therefore, the Appellant had a Bonafide belief that the money received by the Appellant came from legitimate sources. Ld. Counsel further argued that the Appellant had obtained the PAN details of M/s Rishi Hardware, and the Aadhaar Card details of Sh. Ashwani Kapoor. Ld. Counsel furthermore argued that Appellant had raised Invoice Bill No. MC/16-17/63 dated 20.12.2016, against which gold bars were delivered to the authorised representative of Sh. Ashwani Kapoor, who had come to the Appellant‟s shop to take the physical delivery of the gold bars under the directions of Sh. Ashwani Kapoor.

6. Ld. Counsel