APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA AT NEW DELHI FPA-PBPT-38/AHD/2024 M/s Bajrang Traders … Appellant Versus The Initiating Officer, BPU, Ahmedabad … Respondent Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared For the Appellant : Mr. Aseem Thakkar, C. A.

For the Respondents : Mr. Kanhaiya Singhal, S.P.P Mr. Rishabh Bhardwaj, Advocate CORAM JUSTICE MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI : CHAIRMAN SHRI G. C. MISHRA : MEMBER

FINAL ORDER

10.12.2025 The appeal has been preferred by the appellant to challenge the order dated 29.12.2023 passed by the Adjudicating Authority, confirming the provisional attachment order and at the same time, answering the reference sent by the IO. The impugned order was passed under section 26 (3) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Act, 1988 (in short, the Act of

1988).

2. The appellant M/s Bajrang Traders has been treated as the beneficial owner, while M/s Green Traders has been taken as the benamidar. Shri Tejas C Desai has been treated as Abettor no. 1 and Afzalbhai Savjani Sadikali as abettor no. 2.

3. It is a case where certain benami transactions were carried at the time of demonetization of the currency notes by the Government of India. A survey was conducted under section 133 A of the Income Tax on 21.12.2021 at Axis Bank, Mem Nagar Branch. During the course of survey, various accounts were identified in the name of Afzalbhai Savjani Sadikali and many others including Tejas C Desai. It was found that they deposited huge cash in the bank account maintained with Axis Bank in old high denomination notes. The accounts were managed and controlled by two groups, out of which first was led by Afzalbhai Sadikali Savjani and Tejas C. Desai and other was led by Zahir Abbas Kasamali Mithawala and Aftab H. Kazi. The statements were recorded under section 131 of Income Tax Act where in Afzalbhai Savjani Sadikali and Tejas C Desai apart from others admitted that they had deposited cash in dummy accounts. The cash did not belong to them and even it was not earned out of the business activities. In fact, cash was received from different middlemen/beneficiaries and after depositing, it was to be transferred through RTGS to the beneficiaries.

4. On further analysis, it was found that a sum of Rs. 13.50 crores had been deposited in the bank accounts of the proprietorship firm of M/s Green Traders. The proprietor of the firm Amir Yusuf Pathan had allowed operation of the bank account. Tejas C Desai used to give Rs. 8000/- per month in cash for the aforesaid purpose. It was totally managed and controlled by him. Tejas C Desai has stated that an amount of Rs. 13.50 crore was deposited with the help of Sh. AfzalBhai sadikali Sajnani and confirmed that there was no business activity in the account of M/s Green Traders whose proprietor was Amir Yusuf Pathan. It is with a further admission that account was used for deposit of cash and he used to give Rs. 8000/- to Rs. 9000/- per month to Amir Yusuf Pathan. The transaction in all was found to be of Rs. 72 crores in various dummy accounts including the account of M/s Green Traders.

5. A cash of Rs. 50 lakhs were deposited by Siri Naleen Bhai of S.R. Angadia in the bank account of M/s Green Traders. Later on, the said sum was transferred at the discretion of Naleen Bhai to M/s Bajrang Traders. On further scrutiny, it was found that cash deposited in the account of M/s Green Traders was out of benami transaction where Amir Yusuf Pathan, proprietor of M/s Green Traders was found to be the benamidar, but later treated as an abettor. This was nothing but rotation of the money to convert demonetized money and thereby the beneficiaries put cash amount in the bank account of M/s Green Traders and thereafter received after routing it by the banking Th channel. e appellant M/s Bajrang Traders received the aforesaid amount through the banking channel out of the benami transaction. Thus, it was provisionally attached.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant raised the argument in reference to