The review of an order under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act is permissible only for manifest errors or unconsidered issues, not as a substitute for an appeal.

FINAL ORDER

09.02.2026

Batch of Review Petition have been filed under section 47 of Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Act , 1988 (in short, the Act of 1988) against the order dated 14-01-2025 passed by this Tribunal. The orders sought to be reviewed was passed in appeals preferred by the non-applicants challenging the order of Adjudicating Authority confirming the provisional attachment of the property. The Adjudicating Authority found a case of benami transaction. However, the finding recorded by the Authority was challenged by the non- applicant in batch of appeals. After considering the rival submission, this Tribunal allowed the appeals and accordingly the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority was set aside. It was concluded that the case does not involve benami transaction as defined under the Act of 1988 and therefore there was no reason to provisionally attach the properties belonging to the appellant.

2. The facts of the case were narrated in the impugned order and stated that the appellants pursuant to the scheme framed by the Government of India by the name of “Income Declaration Scheme, 2016” made declaration of possession of 12,857.07 carats of rough diamonds of a value of Rs. 49,42,79,680/- being “undisclosed income” received by way of gift/inheritance and were with the appellant since 1994. The declaration aforesaid was made under section 183 of the Finance Act , 2016 and was acknowledged and accepted by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi. The certificate was issued on 07.10.2017 on Form No. 4. The appellant Shashi Kant Chaurasia paid the tax and sur- charges apart from penalty @ of the 45% on the un-disclosed income. He accordingly made the payment of tax of Rs. 22,24,25,856/- in terms of section 184-185 of the , 2016.

3. The rough diamonds were subsequently processed through core job workers in Surat and appellant thereupon sold these diamonds in the financial year 2018-19 to 2021-22 to different persons/firms and received a sum of Rs. 360,25,10,100/- on which he paid tax of Rs. 82,89,85,671/-.

4. The review applicant conducted a search operation on the office premises of “Kamla Pasand Group” wherein statement of Yogendra Raj Singhvi was recorded. The consideration received by the appellant/non applicants out of sale of diamond was used for purchase of properties and taking it to be a case of benami transaction, an order for provisional attachment of the property was caused. The allegation levelled was that the beneficial owner generated the funds by putting cash in the bank account and later on transferred it to the benamidar and thereby a case of benami transaction was made out.

5. The Tribunal did not find any evidence or proof for deposit of cash by the noticee so as to satisfy first limb of the benami transaction. On the contrary, it was found that amount was deposited in the bank account after sale of polished diamonds and the Review Applicant did not question the sale of the said diamonds by the non applicants and accordingly, the order sought to be reviewed was passed by the Tribunal. This order also addressed the legal issues in reference to section 24 (1) and 24 (4) of the Act of 1988.

Argument of the Review Applicants

6. The learned counsel for the Review Applicant submitted that there was no illegality in provisionally attaching the properties which were not disclosed in the notice under section 24 (1) of the Act of 1988. It was permissible under section 24 (4) of the Act of 1988 pursuant to which notice was caused and thereupon the Adjudicating Authority passed the order confirming the provisionally attachment of the property.

7. The findings recorded by this tribunal nee