APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA AT NEW DELHI FPA-PBPT-2589/BBS/2023 M/s. Lord Jagannath Eastcon Pvt. Ltd. … Appellant Versus The Initiating Officer, BPU, Bhubaneswar … Respondent Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared For the Appellant : Mr. Prakash Chandra Sethi, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Anish Dhingra, S.P.P CORAM JUSTICE MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI : CHAIRMAN SHRI G. C. MISHRA : MEMBER

FINAL ORDER

10.12.2025 This appeal has been filed to challenge the order dated 30.03.2023 passed by the Adjudicating Authority confirming the provisional attachment and answering the references sent by the Initiating Officer.

The proceedings were initiated on an information shared with the office of Assistant Director of Income Tax (Inv.), Unit-1(1), Bhubaneswar about benami transaction of a landed property purchased in the name of Mr. Bidya Dhar Mallick arrayed as benamidar and the appellant M/s. Lord Jagannath Eastcon Pvt. Ltd. to be an interested party. It was found that before registration of the land in the name of Mr. Babu Singh, the property was acquired in the name of Mr. Bidya Dhar Mallick from the original land owner Mr. Pitabas Mallick, with intention to re-transfer the property for the benefit of Mr. Babu Singh in future. It was admitted by Mr. Babu Singh that Mr. Bidya Dhar Malik had not paid any consideration for transfer of the land in his name. In fact, Mr. Babu Singh paid the consideration of Rs. 56,55,000/- to the original landowner during the transfer made initially in the name of Mr. Bidya Dhar Mallick.

The Initiating Officer accordingly caused notice under Section 24(1) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 (in short ‘the Act of 1988) followed by the notice under Section 24(3) of the Act of 1988. The order to provisionally attach the property was caused thereupon, apprehending its alienation. On further investigation, the role of the appellant company emerged and accordingly it was shown to be the interested party.

The statement of Mr. Babu Singh was recorded on 03.02.2022 under Section 19(2) of the Act of 1988 where he deposed on oath that the land transaction in the name of Mr. Bidya Dhar Mallick was at his instance and it was with the further clarification that it is not one but seven landed properties were purchased in the name of Mr. Ashok Kumar Das, Mr. Bidya Dhar Mallick and M/s Lord Jagannath Eastcon Pvt. Ltd. Description of all the properties was given. The beneficial owner, Mr. Babu Singh was directed to explain the reasons for the transactions in the names of different persons when consideration was paid by him. It was submitted that he was having an offer for aggregation of land and in that connection, Power of Attorney was obtained from Scheduled Caste land owners and those lands were purchased in the name of Mr. Ashok Kumar Das who was working with him. The other land was purchased in the name of Mr. Bidya Dhar Mallick as it could not have been registered in his name but could have been in the name of the candidate of a Scheduled Caste person only and that remained the reasons for the purchase of the land in the name of different persons. It was nothing but involving a benami transaction and accordingly the proceeding for provisional attachment of the property was undertaken. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the order and accordingly, aggrieved by the aforesaid, this appeal has been filed.

The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the provisional attachment order under Section 24(3) of the Act of 1988 was caused by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (JCIT). He was not the competent authority; rather it could have been by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (DCIT) and therefore on the aforesaid ground itself, the Impugned Order deserves to be set aside. Elaborating the argument, it was submitted that the officer who passed the order was promoted to the post of JCIT. However, as per the direction of the CBDT, he discharged the duties of lower post. The order