APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA AT NEW DELHI

1. MP-PBPT-3030/KNP/2025(Misc.)

MP-PBPT-2144/KNP/2024 (Stay)

FPA-PBPT-392/KNP/2024 DCIT (BPU), Kanpur … Appellant Versus M/s ACE Infracity Developers Pvt. Ltd. … Respondent

2. MP-PBPT-2146/KNP/2024 (Stay)

FPA-PBPT-393/KNP/2024 DCIT (BPU), Kanpur … Appellant Versus Smt. Tara Mishra, through LRs & Anr. … Respondent Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared For the Appellant : Counsel appeared For the Respondents : Counsel appeared CORAM JUSTICE MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI : CHAIRMAN SHRI G. C. MISHRA : MEMBER

FINAL ORDER

25.09.2025 FPA-PBPT-392-93/KNP/2024 This order would decide the appeal preferred by DCIT (BPU), Kanpur and the application filed by the respondents.

2. The case has chequered history in view of the fact that after causing a notice under Section 24(1) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 (in short `the Act of 1988’) and subsequent Provisional Attachment Order followed by a reference, the Provisional Attachment Order was confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority, however, on an appeal preferred by the respondents, the order was set aside by this Tribunal for want of jurisdiction of the Initiating Officer. It was, however, with liberty to cause the proceedings afresh and accordingly, the appellant issued fresh Show Cause Notice to the respondents followed by the Provisional Attachment Order. It was sent to the Adjudicating Authority along with the reference and the impugned order dated

03.11.2022 was passed thereupon.

3. The Adjudicating Authority passed a detailed order in regard to the transaction of 55 properties said to be involved in benami transaction. The properties were divided in three groups out of which 21 properties were taken to be in Sector 150 Noida out of Plot SC-02/G worth of Rs.11,46,49,306/-. The other batch of 11 properties was worth of Rs.6,13,80,000/- and 23 properties declared to be out of benami transaction was worth of Rs.26,19,00,000/- in Ace Parkway, Sector 150, Noida.

4. The Adjudicating Authority found transaction in respect of 55 properties to be prior to the amendment in the Act of 1988 by the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 (in short `Amendment Act of 2016’). It was held that in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. reported in (202 ) 3 SCC 315, since transactions involved in these cases are prior to 25.10.2016, therefore, it would not be effected by the Amending Act of 2016 and thereby despite finding a case benami of transaction, the Adjudicating Authority refused to confirm the provisional attachment of the properties and even answered the reference in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ganpati Dealcom (supra).

5. The appellant remained aggrieved by the order of the Adjudicating Authority in the light of the subsequent order of the Apex Court dated 18.10.2024 recalling its judgment in the case of Ganpati Dealcom (supra). Once the judgment was recalled, a decision was taken to file an appeal because the order of the Adjudicating Authority is based on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ganpati Dealcom (supra) now not existing. The prayer was made to remand the case back to the Adjudicating Authority for decision afresh without being effected by the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ganpati Dealcom (supra). It is in reference to the order passed by the Tribunal remanding the case to the Adjudicating Authority in similar cases subsequent to the order of the Apex Court recalling the judgment in the case of Ganpati Dealcom (supra).

6. The appeal was seriously contested by the counsel for the respondents. It was submitted that even on merit, a case of benami transaction is not made out thus there is no purpose to remand the case to the Adjudicating Authority. The learned counsel for the respondent referred to the interlocutory application filed to call for the order of the Initiating Officer who reca