APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA AT NEW DELHI (1) FPA-PBPT-1861/BBS/2022 Gagan Bihari Mallik … Appellant (2) FPA-PBPT-1862/BBS/2022 Soumendra Kumar Mohanty … Appellant Versus The Initiating Officer, BPU, Bhubaneswar … Respondent Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared For the Appellants : Mr. Prakash C. Sethi, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Anish Dhingra Mr. Nakul Ahuja Mr. Mohit Kumar, Advocates CORAM JUSTICE MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI : CHAIRMAN SHRI G. C. MISHRA : MEMBER

ORDER

25.11.2025 These two appeals have been preferred by benamidar and beneficial owner to challenge the order dated 28.01.2022 passed by the Adjudicating Authority confirming the provisional attachment order while answering the reference. The appellant Gagan Bihari Mallik is held to be benamidar while Sh. Soumendra Kumar Mohanty held to be the beneficial owner. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority confirming the provisional attachment order, the appeal has been preferred raising factual and legal issues. However, before those issues are referred, it would be relevant to refer the brief facts of the case.

Brief facts of the case

2. A search and seizure under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted in reference to M/s SM Consultants group on 20.10.2016. The group was headed by Sh. Soumendra Kumar Mohanty. He was controlling all business activities of the Dur group. ing the course of search, documents relating to many properties were found and seized. It was from the residential premises of Soumendra Kumar Mohanty. The verification of those documents revealed involvement of large number of land purchase in the name of various persons of the group. It was largely in the name of Sh. Gagan Bihari Malik and accordingly land documents pertaining to 61 properties were seized.

3. The list of the family members of Soumendra Kumar Mohanty along with the land acquired in the name of Gagan Bihari Mallik was recovered from the residential premises of Sh. Soumendra Kumar Mohanty. On verification of the details of Gagan Bihari Malik, it was revealed that he was not holding PAN, rather filed ITR for the first time for the financial years 2018-19 relevant to Assessment Year 2019-20 on 04.12.2019 disclosing his total income to of be Rs. 3,68,000/-. He was not an income tax payee prior to the aforesaid. His capacity to purchase 61 landed properties for consideration of Rs. 66,57,140/- was doubted and accordingly proceedings under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 ( in short, “the Act of 1988”) were initiated. Sh. Soumendra Kumar Mohanty was found involved in acquiring lands in the name of his family members and in that process, he purchased number of landed properties in the name of Gagan Bihari Malik who was having no means to purchase the property. The consideration for purchase of the property was paid by Soumendra Kumar Mohanty. He was thus taken to be beneficial owner while Gagan Bihari Malik to be benamidar having no means to purchase the properties. After initiation the process by serving a notice under section 24 (1) of the Act of 1988, provisional attachment order was caused and sent to the Adjudicating Authority for its confirmation. The purchase of all the properties were prior to the submission of Income Tax Return by Gagan Bihari Malik and accordingly considering all the relevant facts, the Adjudicating Authority confirmed the provisional attachment order of the properties.

o

4. The respondents could bring n record that Gagan Bihari Malik was an employee of Soumendra Kumar Mohanty and thereby benami transaction to acquire the property was made in the name of employee having no means to involve more than Rs. 66 lakhs to purchase 61 landed properties. The document to prove the case was found and seized during the course of search.

Arguments of the counsel for the appellants:-

5. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the impugned order has been passed without causing a proper notice under