APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA AT NEW DELHI

1. MP-PBPT-960/LKW/2024 (Exemp.)

MP-PBPT-959/LKW/2024 (Stay)

FPA-PBPT-280/LKW/2024 The DCIT (BPU) Lucknow … Appellant Versus M/s Sara Company Prop. Sahil Siddiqui & Anr. … Respondent

2. MP-PBPT-962/LKW/2024 (Exemp.)

MP-PBPT-961/LKW/2024 (Stay)

FPA-PBPT-281/LKW/2024 The DCIT (BPU) Lucknow … Appellant Versus M/s Sara Company Prop. Sahil Siddiqui & Anr. … Respondent

3. MP-PBPT-964/LKW/2024 (Exemp.)

MP-PBPT-963/LKW/2024 (Stay)

FPA-PBPT-282/LKW/2024 The DCIT (BPU) Lucknow … Appellant Versus M/s Sara Company Prop. Sahil Siddiqui & Anr. … Respondent Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared For the Applicant : Mr. Manmeet S. Arora, S.P.P Mr. Camran Iqbal Ms. Khushi Gupta, Advocates For the Non-applicant : Mr. Ashwani Taneja Mr. Siddhant Taneja Ms. Gunjan Chauhan, Advocates Mr. Ashish Tandon, CA CORAM JUSTICE MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI : CHAIRMAN SHRI G. C. MISHRA : MEMBER

FINAL ORDER

09.03.2026 By these appeals under Section 46(1) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 (in short ‘the Act of 1988), a challenge has been made to the order dated 30.07.2024 passed by the Adjudicating Authority denying the confirmation of the provisional attachment order caused by the Initiating Officer while answering the reference.

The appeals are in the hand of DCIT (BPU), Lucknow in view of the fact that the Adjudicating Authority did not find a case of benami transaction and accordingly reference was answered adverse to the appellant.

The Adjudicating Authority did not confirm the provisional attachment order of the property after martialing the evidence relied by rival parties. The detailed discussion of each factual and legal issues has been made.

The challenge to the Impugned Order has been made mainly on three counts:

1) The benamidar was doing its business from the premises of beneficial owner.

2) In reference to the first issue, respondents took defence for use of premises on rent while no lease agreement was produced with any evidence to prove the payment of rent as a consequence thereof.

3) The account of benamidar namely M/s Sara Company, Prop. Sahil Siddiqui & Anr. was maintained in the office of beneficial owner.

The learned counsel for the appellant has made further reference of the statement of Nitish Kumar and Ashish Khare to show a case of benami transaction and accordingly prayer was made to cause interference in the Impugned Order.

The appeals were contested by the counsel for the respondent. It was submitted that no ingredient of benami transaction as defined under Section 2(9)(A) of the Act of the 1988 has been satisfied and accordingly the Adjudicating Authority, after detailed discussion came to the conclusion that the evidence produced by the parties does not satisfy or make out a case of benami transaction. It was only an arrangement for smooth business by two entities out of which one was supplier of goods to the other. To have a smooth transaction for supply, the arrangement was carved out to maintain the affairs which does not involve an element of benami transaction and accordingly the appeals deserve to be dismissed because there exists no perversity in the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority.

We have considered the rival submissions and perused the records carefully. A detailed order has been passed by the Adjudicating Authority for answering the reference and while doing it, it denied confirmation the provisional attachment order. To analyse the issue, it is necessary to find out whether the ingredient of benami transaction as defined under Section 2(9)(A) of the Act of 1988 has been satisfied and for ready reference provision aforesaid is quoted hereunder:

“2. Definitions.— In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, (9) “benami transaction” means,—

(A) a transaction or an arrangement (a) where a property is transferred to, or is held by, a person, and the consideration for such property has been provided, or paid by, another person; and (b) the property