The benami attachment on my client's bank accounts rests on an investigation that never traced the people it names. Will the Tribunal simply release it?
Not necessarily. Where both sides have left holes — the Initiating Officer having failed to trace the person said to control the benamidar companies or to establish how they were incorporated and operated, and the appellant having failed to produce a stock register or the underlying sale invoices — the Appellate Tribunal remanded the matter for re-investigation instead of deciding it, directed that it be completed preferably within six months, ordered status quo and directed the banks to convert the attached balances into fixed deposits in the meantime.
Decided by the ITAT (Balesh Kumar, Member, and Rajesh Malhotra, Member) on 2026-01-29, reported as FPA-PBPT-1457/MUM/2021. It bears on section Benami s.2(10), section Benami s.24, section Benami s.26, section Benami s.26(6), section Benami s.46 of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Evidence & Burden of Proof and Cash Transaction Limits matters.
It shows what happens when a benami attachment is fought on the incompleteness of the Department's investigation alone. The Tribunal will not release the money if the appellant's own books are equally unproved; the outcome is a further round of investigation with the funds still locked, which is a materially worse result than an outright release and should shape how the appeal is prepared.
Binding on the AO and CIT(A) within the Tribunal's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
The Initiating Officer, Benami Property Unit, Mumbai provisionally attached on 27 August 2019 Rs. 4,78,73,232 lying in an Axis Bank account and Rs. 27,50,000 in a Union Bank of India account, both of M/s Ambica Bullion. The case was that Rs. 10,98,13,500 of demonetised currency had been deposited in the accounts of two benami companies, M/s Altimax Venture Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Homeground Marketing Pvt. Ltd., which then moved Rs. 5,06,23,232 to Ambica Bullion. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the attachment on 2 September 2021. Ambica Bullion said the receipts were sale consideration for gold bullion supplied in November and December 2016, supported by invoices and ledger entries, and that the two companies were run by one Satish Pujari through dummy directors. The Department said the invoices were fabricated and that there was no stock register, no delivery note and no footage showing any gold moving, and that one of the directors denied taking delivery. Ambica Bullion applied under s.26(6) to have Satish Pujari made a party before the Adjudicating Authority, and that application was rejected - as the Tribunal records at para 2 in its recital of the appellant's case.
The matter was remanded for re-investigation, to be concluded preferably within six months, with a copy of the order to go to all concerned parties including the benamidars (para 6). Both sides were directed to maintain status quo in respect of the attached properties and the banks were directed to keep the attached amounts in the form of fixed deposit receipts until further order (para 5).
The Tribunal set out the gaps on the Department's side: nothing on record showed that the proprietor of Ambica Bullion had handed the demonetised currency to the directors of the two companies; Satish Pujari, whom the directors themselves named, was never traced; and the incorporation details, founding directors, shareholding, bank account opening formalities and PAN issue dates of the two companies were not established, so his control over them was never verified. The Initiating Officer had also not examined the companies' dealings with other third parties, which would have shown who actually managed them (para 4). Against that, the Tribunal recorded what Ambica Bullion had failed to produce — a stock register from which the stock held before the sales and the balance after could be checked, the sale invoices for the cash receipt of 24 November 2016, and the quarterly VAT statements for October to December 2016 (para 4). With material deficiencies on both sides, a decision on the merits was not possible and re-investigation was necessary (para 5).
In view of our discussion in the preceding paras, the present case is remanded for re-investigation.
Upload it and we will read it, work out your deadline and draft the reply. A CA reviews before anything is filed.
Handle my notice → Ask a CA on WhatsAppNot necessarily. Where both sides have left holes — the Initiating Officer having failed to trace the person said to control the benamidar companies or to establish how they were incorporated and operated, and the appellant having failed to produce a stock register or the underlying sale invoices — the Appellate Tribunal remanded the matter for re-investigation instead of deciding it, directed that it be completed preferably within six months, ordered status quo and directed the banks to convert the attached balances into fixed deposits in the meantime. This was decided by the ITAT (Balesh Kumar, Member, and Rajesh Malhotra, Member) and bears on section Benami s.2(10), section Benami s.24, section Benami s.26, section Benami s.26(6), section Benami s.46 of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as FPA-PBPT-1457/MUM/2021. It shows what happens when a benami attachment is fought on the incompleteness of the Department's investigation alone. The Tribunal will not release the money if the appellant's own books are equally unproved; the outcome is a further round of investigation with the funds still locked, which is a materially worse result than an outright release and should shape how the appeal is prepared. If it applies to you, the first step is this: Assemble the trading record before you argue the attachment: stock register showing sufficient stock before the sales and the balance after, the sale invoices for each cash receipt, and the VAT or GST returns for the quarter.
The Initiating Officer, Benami Property Unit, Mumbai provisionally attached on 27 August 2019 Rs. 4,78,73,232 lying in an Axis Bank account and Rs. 27,50,000 in a Union Bank of India account, both of M/s Ambica Bullion. The case was that Rs. 10,98,13,500 of demonetised currency had been deposited in the accounts of two benami companies, M/s Altimax Venture Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Homeground Marketing Pvt. Ltd., which then moved Rs. 5,06,23,232 to Ambica Bullion. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the attachment on 2 September 2021. Ambica Bullion said the receipts were sale consideration for gold bullion supplied in November and December 2016, supported by invoices and ledger entries, and that the two companies were run by one Satish Pujari through dummy directors. The Department said the invoices were fabricated and that there was no stock register, no delivery note and no footage showing any gold moving, and that one of the directors denied taking delivery. Ambica Bullion applied under s.26(6) to have Satish Pujari made a party before the Adjudicating Authority, and that application was rejected - as the Tribunal records at para 2 in its recital of the appellant's case. The matter was decided on 2026-01-29 by the ITAT (Balesh Kumar, Member, and Rajesh Malhotra, Member). On those facts the ITAT held as follows. The matter was remanded for re-investigation, to be concluded preferably within six months, with a copy of the order to go to all concerned parties including the benamidars (para 6). Both sides were directed to maintain status quo in respect of the attached properties and the banks were directed to keep the attached amounts in the form of fixed deposit receipts until further order (para 5).
The Tribunal set out the gaps on the Department's side: nothing on record showed that the proprietor of Ambica Bullion had handed the demonetised currency to the directors of the two companies; Satish Pujari, whom the directors themselves named, was never traced; and the incorporation details, founding directors, shareholding, bank account opening formalities and PAN issue dates of the two companies were not established, so his control over them was never verified. The Initiating Officer had also not examined the companies' dealings with other third parties, which would have shown who actually managed them (para 4). Against that, the Tribunal recorded what Ambica Bullion had failed to produce — a stock register from which the stock held before the sales and the balance after could be checked, the sale invoices for the cash receipt of 24 November 2016, and the quarterly VAT statements for October to December 2016 (para 4). With material deficiencies on both sides, a decision on the merits was not possible and re-investigation was necessary (para 5). In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "In view of our discussion in the preceding paras, the present case is remanded for re-investigation."
It was decided by the ITAT on 2026-01-29 and is reported as FPA-PBPT-1457/MUM/2021. Binding on the AO and CIT(A) within the Tribunal's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere. A Tribunal decision binds the assessing officer and the Commissioner (Appeals) within that Tribunal's jurisdiction, and is persuasive before other benches. It is not binding on a High Court, and a contrary co-ordinate bench decision will be argued against you, so check whether the point has been taken the other way before you build a reply around it. On section Benami s.2(10), section Benami s.24, section Benami s.26, section Benami s.26(6), section Benami s.46, the practical question is whether the facts of your own notice match the facts of this case closely enough for the same rule to apply.
It cuts both ways and is cited by both sides. The matter was remanded for re-investigation, to be concluded preferably within six months, with a copy of the order to go to all concerned parties including the benamidars (para 6). Both sides were directed to maintain status quo in respect of the attached properties and the banks were directed to keep the attached amounts in the form of fixed deposit receipts until further order (para 5). It arises in Evidence & Burden of Proof and Cash Transaction Limits matters, on section Benami s.2(10), section Benami s.24, section Benami s.26, section Benami s.26(6), section Benami s.46 of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by Balesh Kumar, Member, and Rajesh Malhotra, Member. Before relying on it, read the source linked on this page and check whether it has since been distinguished, overruled or overtaken by an amendment to the Income Tax Act. In practice the steps that follow from it are these. Do not rest the appeal only on gaps in the Initiating Officer's enquiry; the Tribunal weighed the two sets of gaps against each other. If a third party is said to control the benamidar entities, apply under s.26(6) early to have him made a party and keep the refusal on the record - the Adjudicating Authority refused such an application here, and the Tribunal did not rule on it. Expect a direction converting attached bank balances into fixed deposit receipts on remand, and take up with the bank who holds the interest. Diarise the six-month direction and press the Initiating Officer against it if the re-investigation drifts.
Searched for later treatment; none was found. That is not the same as a source affirming it. Decided in January 2026 and no later treatment of it was found. The Appellate Tribunal's site offers only a search form that cannot be worked through from outside, and its benami orders are not carried on the general case-law databases, so nothing should be read into the silence. Whether the re-investigation directed here has been completed is not on the record. No source could be cited for that finding. Checking whether an authority still stands matters as much as knowing what it held: a decision may be overruled on one point and survive on another, or the provision it interprets may have been amended since. Read the source and the editor's note on this page before relying on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal.
This is the Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA at New Delhi, which hears appeals under s.46 of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act 1988. It is NOT the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The `itat` tier is used only because the library's vocabulary has no separate value for this Tribunal. The order cites no earlier authority of its own, so no `followed` list is recorded. The section references are as the order uses them: the appeal is under s.46, the attachment under s.24 and its confirmation under s.26, the definition of benamidar in s.2(10) is referred to in connection with the dummy directors, and the application to add a party, which the Adjudicating Authority rejected, was made under s.26(6). The order does not set out the provision under which the direction to convert the balances into fixed deposits was made. An independent reading of the order on the Tribunal's own site confirmed the bench, the appeal number, the date, the remand, the six-month direction, the status quo and fixed-deposit directions and the key quote word for word, and corrected one sentence: the rejection of the s.26(6) application to add Satish Pujari as a party was the Adjudicating Authority's, recited at para 2 in the appellant's case, and was no part of this Tribunal's disposition; it has been moved out of `held` into `facts` and the corresponding step in `what_to_do` has been amended. This library shows the verification state of every entry openly. This entry has not yet been read in full by a chartered accountant. The summary reflects the sources listed on this page. Read the source before you rely on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
The matter was remanded for re-investigation, to be concluded preferably within six months, with a copy of the order to go to all concerned parties including the benamidars (para 6). Both sides were directed to maintain status quo in respect of the attached properties and the banks were directed to keep the attached amounts in the form of fixed deposit receipts until further order (para 5).
TaxSphere, “Ambica Bullion v DCIT (BPU-1), Mumbai”, https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/ambica-bullion-v-dcit-bpu-mumbai-benami-24-remand-incomplete-investigation/ (validity last checked 2026-09-16)
The judgment itself is a government work and may be quoted freely. The summary, the validity note and the reasoning on this page are this library's own writing: quote them with attribution, and please do not present either as the words of the court — this page keeps the two apart and so should a quotation of it.
Every entry in this library links to where it was found, so you can check it yourself rather than take our word for it.
I went to the High Court instead of the Tribunal and the adjudication order is now months old. Is my s.46 appeal dead?
My client handed demonetised notes to a trader who banked them and sent the money back the same day. Is that a benami transaction, and does the PMGKY declaration help?
Jewellery found in my client's house during a search has been attached as benami. The alleged owner declared it under PMGKY. Does the attachment survive?
I bought a property from a company that is now said to have held it benami, and the attachment came without any notice to me. Can I get it lifted?
