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?
It did not. The Appellate Tribunal had the jewellery verified against the jeweller's own hallmarking and sales records, and only four of sixty-six packets could be traced to the showroom the Department relied on. The person said to be the beneficial owner had already declared the jewellery bought from that showroom under the Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Yojana 2016 and the Department had accepted the declaration. On that material the Tribunal held the jewellery was not held as benami, set aside the adjudication order and allowed the appeal.
Decided by the ITAT (Balesh Kumar, Member, and Rajesh Malhotra, Member) on 2026-02-12, reported as FPA-PBPT-444/KOL/2019; MP-PBPT-2420/KOL/2025; Reference No. R-508/2018. It bears on section Benami s.2(10), section Benami s.24, section Benami s.26(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Search, Survey & Block Assessment and Evidence & Burden of Proof matters.
It shows the two things that break a benami attachment on jewellery: a physical verification against the jeweller's records, which the Tribunal itself directed, and an accepted PMGKY declaration covering the same assets. A department that has taken tax on a declaration cannot at the same time run a benami case on the same jewellery.
Binding on the AO and CIT(A) within the Tribunal's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
During an income-tax search on 29 December 2016 jewellery weighing 3567.97 grams was found at the appellant's residence, of which 2465.60 grams was seized. The Revenue's case was that she held it as benamidar for Animesh Banerjee as beneficial owner, and that the two had visited a Senco Gold showroom and paid Rs. 2 crores as advance in November 2016. Attachment was confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority and she appealed. A verification was carried out on 29 December 2025 against the jeweller's records.
The impugned order was set aside and the appeal allowed (para 9). The seized jewellery was not being held as benami by the alleged benamidar (para 8).
On the verification directed in the appeal, only four of the sixty-six packets of jewellery matched the hallmarking and sales records of the Senco Gold showroom, and the remaining items had no connection with it, so the factual foundation of the Department's case fell away (para 8). Animesh Banerjee had disclosed the entire jewellery purchased from that showroom under the Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Yojana 2016 and the Department had accepted that disclosure, which left no room for a simultaneous benami allegation over the same jewellery (para 8).
the seized Jewelleries were not being held as Benami by the alleged Benamidar
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 WhatsAppIt did not. The Appellate Tribunal had the jewellery verified against the jeweller's own hallmarking and sales records, and only four of sixty-six packets could be traced to the showroom the Department relied on. The person said to be the beneficial owner had already declared the jewellery bought from that showroom under the Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Yojana 2016 and the Department had accepted the declaration. On that material the Tribunal held the jewellery was not held as benami, set aside the adjudication order and allowed the appeal. 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(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as FPA-PBPT-444/KOL/2019; MP-PBPT-2420/KOL/2025; Reference No. R-508/2018. It shows the two things that break a benami attachment on jewellery: a physical verification against the jeweller's records, which the Tribunal itself directed, and an accepted PMGKY declaration covering the same assets. A department that has taken tax on a declaration cannot at the same time run a benami case on the same jewellery. If it applies to you, the first step is this: Ask the Tribunal to direct verification of the seized items against the jeweller's hallmarking and sales records item by item, rather than arguing the point on affidavits.
During an income-tax search on 29 December 2016 jewellery weighing 3567.97 grams was found at the appellant's residence, of which 2465.60 grams was seized. The Revenue's case was that she held it as benamidar for Animesh Banerjee as beneficial owner, and that the two had visited a Senco Gold showroom and paid Rs. 2 crores as advance in November 2016. Attachment was confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority and she appealed. A verification was carried out on 29 December 2025 against the jeweller's records. The matter was decided on 2026-02-12 by the ITAT (Balesh Kumar, Member, and Rajesh Malhotra, Member). On those facts the ITAT held as follows. The impugned order was set aside and the appeal allowed (para 9). The seized jewellery was not being held as benami by the alleged benamidar (para 8).
On the verification directed in the appeal, only four of the sixty-six packets of jewellery matched the hallmarking and sales records of the Senco Gold showroom, and the remaining items had no connection with it, so the factual foundation of the Department's case fell away (para 8). Animesh Banerjee had disclosed the entire jewellery purchased from that showroom under the Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Yojana 2016 and the Department had accepted that disclosure, which left no room for a simultaneous benami allegation over the same jewellery (para 8). In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "the seized Jewelleries were not being held as Benami by the alleged Benamidar"
It was decided by the ITAT on 2026-02-12 and is reported as FPA-PBPT-444/KOL/2019; MP-PBPT-2420/KOL/2025; Reference No. R-508/2018. 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(3), 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 impugned order was set aside and the appeal allowed (para 9). The seized jewellery was not being held as benami by the alleged benamidar (para 8). It arises in Search, Survey & Block Assessment and Evidence & Burden of Proof matters, on section Benami s.2(10), section Benami s.24, section Benami s.26(3) 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. Produce the PMGKY declaration and the Department's acceptance of it, and identify exactly which assets it covers. Test the Department's case that the parties visited the showroom together and paid an advance — here it did not survive the verification. Keep the weight and count of the seized items and the packet-wise inventory; the result turned on how many of the sixty-six packets matched.
Searched for later treatment; none was found. That is not the same as a source affirming it. Decided in February 2026; no later decision applying, affirming, doubting or overruling it was found. The Appellate Tribunal's own site could not be searched from outside and its benami orders are not carried on the general case-law databases, so nothing follows from the absence of later treatment. 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 could not be found on the Tribunal's own site at atfp.gov.in, whose orders are published as PDFs at unguessable addresses behind a search form that cannot be driven from outside; the text relied on here was read in a third party's reproduction of the Tribunal's order, with the site's own summary and commentary disregarded. The appeal number, the date and the paragraph numbering should be checked against the Tribunal's own copy before the case is cited. The order as reproduced does not say under whose direction the verification of 29 December 2025 was carried out beyond recording that it was ordered, and it cites no earlier authority of its own. 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 impugned order was set aside and the appeal allowed (para 9). The seized jewellery was not being held as benami by the alleged benamidar (para 8).
TaxSphere, “Ranjana Roy v Initiating Officer, Kolkata”, https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/ranjana-roy-v-initiating-officer-benami-jewellery-verification-pmgky/ (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 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?
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?
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 adjudication order is dated inside the one-year period in s.26(7), but the certified copy reached me weeks after it expired. Is the order time-barred?
