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?
Yes, on this order. The Appellate Tribunal set aside the provisional attachment and allowed the appeal, holding that the Initiating Officer must satisfy himself of four matters before attaching under s.24(3), that a purchaser whose sale deed is on record is entitled to notice under s.24(1), and that the initial burden of showing that the purchase was not bona fide lies on the Initiating Officer and must be discharged by cogent evidence.
Decided by the ITAT (Justice Manmohan Singh, Chairman) on 2019-09-03, reported as FPA-PBPT-820/MUM/2019 (Appellate Tribunal for Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, New Delhi). It bears on section Benami s.24(1), section Benami s.24(3), section Benami s.24(4), section Benami s.26(6), section Benami s.27(2) of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Evidence & Burden of Proof, Appeals and How Tax Law Is Read matters.
It is the ordinary case of a buyer who paid the price and registered the deed, and then finds the property attached in a proceeding to which he was never made a party. The order gives both the procedural point - notice and impleadment - and the evidentiary point - who has to prove what - in a single place.
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 passed a provisional attachment order on 23 March 2018 under s.24(3) over agricultural land at Gat Nos. 1051 and 1052, village Wake Budruk, Pune. The appellant, M/s. Kavita Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., had purchased those properties from M/s. Veena Industries Ltd., the erstwhile owner, for Rs 12,46,87,500, with stamp duty of Rs 44,30,000 paid and the sale deed registered on 14 June 2017. No notice under s.24(1) was issued to the appellant although the sale deed was available. The Adjudicating Authority passed its order dated 28 March 2019 in Reference No. 749/2018 without impleading the appellant, despite its intervention application. The appellant appealed to the Tribunal.
The appeal was allowed and the impugned order set aside (para 25). The Tribunal held that the Initiating Officer must, before issuing a provisional attachment order under s.24(3), know who is in possession of the property, be satisfied that that person holds it as benami, be satisfied that the property is likely to be alienated, and be satisfied that the alienation is likely to occur within the period specified in the s.24(1) notice; that the appellant, whose registered sale deed was on the record, ought to have been noticed under s.24(1); and that the burden of showing that the purchase was not bona fide lay initially on the Initiating Officer.
At para 8 the Tribunal recorded that the provisional attachment order of 23 March 2018 had been passed without any inquiry into who actually possessed the property or held title to it, and set out the four matters the officer must be satisfied of before acting under s.24(3). At para 15 it held that it would have been fair and legal to have noticed the appellant under s.24(1), the sale deed being on the record. Paras 16 and 17 record the appellant's acquisition from M/s. Veena Industries Ltd. for Rs 12,46,87,500 after due diligence, the payment of Rs 44,30,000 by way of stamp duty and the registration of the sale deed on 14 June 2017. At para 20 the Tribunal stated that the burden of proof lies on the person who alleges and that the initial burden lies on the Initiating Officer, to be discharged by cogent evidence. At para 23 it recorded that the Adjudicating Authority had passed its order of 28 March 2019 without impleading the appellant notwithstanding its intervention application, in breach of natural justice.
In the light of above, the impugned order is set-aside by allowing the appeal.
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 WhatsAppYes, on this order. The Appellate Tribunal set aside the provisional attachment and allowed the appeal, holding that the Initiating Officer must satisfy himself of four matters before attaching under s.24(3), that a purchaser whose sale deed is on record is entitled to notice under s.24(1), and that the initial burden of showing that the purchase was not bona fide lies on the Initiating Officer and must be discharged by cogent evidence. This was decided by the ITAT (Justice Manmohan Singh, Chairman) and bears on section Benami s.24(1), section Benami s.24(3), section Benami s.24(4), section Benami s.26(6), section Benami s.27(2) of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as FPA-PBPT-820/MUM/2019 (Appellate Tribunal for Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, New Delhi). It is the ordinary case of a buyer who paid the price and registered the deed, and then finds the property attached in a proceeding to which he was never made a party. The order gives both the procedural point - notice and impleadment - and the evidentiary point - who has to prove what - in a single place. If it applies to you, the first step is this: Check whether the Initiating Officer recorded satisfaction on each of the four matters s.24(3) requires before the provisional attachment order issued.
The Initiating Officer passed a provisional attachment order on 23 March 2018 under s.24(3) over agricultural land at Gat Nos. 1051 and 1052, village Wake Budruk, Pune. The appellant, M/s. Kavita Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., had purchased those properties from M/s. Veena Industries Ltd., the erstwhile owner, for Rs 12,46,87,500, with stamp duty of Rs 44,30,000 paid and the sale deed registered on 14 June 2017. No notice under s.24(1) was issued to the appellant although the sale deed was available. The Adjudicating Authority passed its order dated 28 March 2019 in Reference No. 749/2018 without impleading the appellant, despite its intervention application. The appellant appealed to the Tribunal. The matter was decided on 2019-09-03 by the ITAT (Justice Manmohan Singh, Chairman). On those facts the ITAT held as follows. The appeal was allowed and the impugned order set aside (para 25). The Tribunal held that the Initiating Officer must, before issuing a provisional attachment order under s.24(3), know who is in possession of the property, be satisfied that that person holds it as benami, be satisfied that the property is likely to be alienated, and be satisfied that the alienation is likely to occur within the period specified in the s.24(1) notice; that the appellant, whose registered sale deed was on the record, ought to have been noticed under s.24(1); and that the burden of showing that the purchase was not bona fide lay initially on the Initiating Officer.
At para 8 the Tribunal recorded that the provisional attachment order of 23 March 2018 had been passed without any inquiry into who actually possessed the property or held title to it, and set out the four matters the officer must be satisfied of before acting under s.24(3). At para 15 it held that it would have been fair and legal to have noticed the appellant under s.24(1), the sale deed being on the record. Paras 16 and 17 record the appellant's acquisition from M/s. Veena Industries Ltd. for Rs 12,46,87,500 after due diligence, the payment of Rs 44,30,000 by way of stamp duty and the registration of the sale deed on 14 June 2017. At para 20 the Tribunal stated that the burden of proof lies on the person who alleges and that the initial burden lies on the Initiating Officer, to be discharged by cogent evidence. At para 23 it recorded that the Adjudicating Authority had passed its order of 28 March 2019 without impleading the appellant notwithstanding its intervention application, in breach of natural justice. In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "In the light of above, the impugned order is set-aside by allowing the appeal."
It was decided by the ITAT on 2019-09-03 and is reported as FPA-PBPT-820/MUM/2019 (Appellate Tribunal for Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, New Delhi). 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.24(1), section Benami s.24(3), section Benami s.24(4), section Benami s.26(6), section Benami s.27(2), 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 helps the taxpayer. The appeal was allowed and the impugned order set aside (para 25). The Tribunal held that the Initiating Officer must, before issuing a provisional attachment order under s.24(3), know who is in possession of the property, be satisfied that that person holds it as benami, be satisfied that the property is likely to be alienated, and be satisfied that the alienation is likely to occur within the period specified in the s.24(1) notice; that the appellant, whose registered sale deed was on the record, ought to have been noticed under s.24(1); and that the burden of showing that the purchase was not bona fide lay initially on the Initiating Officer. It arises in Evidence & Burden of Proof, Appeals and How Tax Law Is Read matters, on section Benami s.24(1), section Benami s.24(3), section Benami s.24(4), section Benami s.26(6), section Benami s.27(2) of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by Justice Manmohan Singh, Chairman. 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. If your sale deed was on the record when the attachment was made, take the absence of a notice under s.24(1) as a ground in itself. Apply to be impleaded before the Adjudicating Authority and press the application; an order passed without impleading you despite an intervention application is open to challenge. Put the consideration, the mode of payment, the stamp duty paid and the registration of the deed on record, and then say that the initial burden of displacing a bona fide purchase rests on the Initiating Officer.
Searched for later treatment; none was found. That is not the same as a source affirming it. Decided 3 September 2019, on the Tribunal's own published copy. Nothing applying, affirming, doubting or reversing it was located; indiankanoon carries no doctype for this Tribunal and the Tribunal's own site publishes orders only through a search form that could not be submitted from here, so later treatment of its orders is hard to track. Note the date: the order predates the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India v Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. (2022) and the later recall of that decision, and says nothing about whether the 2016 amendment operates on earlier transactions. 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 an order of the Appellate Tribunal sitting under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, published on the Tribunal's own site at atfp.gov.in. The library's tier vocabulary has no separate value for that Tribunal, so it is recorded at the tribunal tier alongside the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal; it is not an ITAT order. The order was read from the Tribunal's own PDF, reached through a search engine - the site's judgment listing is a form that could not be submitted from here, and the file name gives no clue to the case, so the same order cannot be found again by browsing the site. The four matters listed under s.24(3) are the Tribunal's own formulation and are paraphrased here from its wording; the words quoted in `key_quote` are verbatim. No neutral or reporter citation is printed on the copy read. The name of the alleged beneficial owner is not stated in the part of the order read; the alleged benami holding was that of M/s. Veena Industries Ltd., the vendor. 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 appeal was allowed and the impugned order set aside (para 25). The Tribunal held that the Initiating Officer must, before issuing a provisional attachment order under s.24(3), know who is in possession of the property, be satisfied that that person holds it as benami, be satisfied that the property is likely to be alienated, and be satisfied that the alienation is likely to occur within the period specified in the s.24(1) notice; that the appellant, whose registered sale deed was on the record, ought to have been noticed under s.24(1); and that the burden of showing that the purchase was not bona fide lay initially on the Initiating Officer.
TaxSphere, “Kavita Infrastructure Pvt Ltd v Initiating Officer”, https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/kavita-infrastructure-v-initiating-officer-benami-24-preconditions/ (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.
The Initiating Officer has issued a s.24 notice and attached my accounts on the strength of a spreadsheet found in someone else's search. Will the High Court interfere now?
The benami show-cause notice came from an Initiating Officer in a city where neither the property nor my client sits. Does that matter?
A benami show-cause and attachment have come on the strength of one contractor's statement. Can I go to the High Court now?
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?
