Advance Salary given during demonetization does not comes under preview of Benami Transaction

Advance Salary given during demonetization does not comes under preview of Benami Transaction Order dated 31st October, 2018 by APPELLATE TR

Advance Salary given during demonetization does not comes under preview of Benami Transaction
Order dated 31st October, 2018 by APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR SAFEMA, FEMA, PMLA, NDPS, PBPT Act
The Extract of the Judgement is given below
41. The facts of the present case are clear that the property was never held by the appellants. The amount received by them have returned/adjusted towards salaries. Even the question of any arrangement in the present case does not arise as the appellants have received only advance salary from the employer under oral contract at the asking of the respondent, the same was immediately returned. The said factual position has not been denied by the respondent. This is also not a case where the person providing the consideration was not traceable or fictitious. The admitted position is that the management/employer was very much traceable, his statement was recorded, the money returned by the appellants was dealt by the department.
42. The existence of the benami transaction has to be proved by the authorities i.e. the person who alleges the transaction (Sitaram Agarwal v. Subrata Chandra, (2008) 7 S.C.C. 716). The authorities have failed to discharge the burden of proof. The authority has purely gone on the premise that cash is transferred from one person to another, with an object to defeat,demonetization. This is insufficient to establish a benami transaction.
43. The transaction where cash is paid to person in lieu of a future promise cannot be a benami transaction as there is no lending of name. There can be no benami transaction if the future benefit is due from the person who is also the holder of property.
44. The impugned order is not sustainable as it punishes the appellants for wanting to defeat the purpose of demonetization, which has no direct nexus with the Act and is beyond the purview of the Act.
45. Under these circumstances, the impugned order dated 27.3.2018 in all nine appeals is set-aside. The attached properties are released forthwith. The appeal and pending application are disposed of.
46. No costs.
Click here to download the Judgement
About Author

CA Deepak Gupta
Co Founder
CA Deepak Gupta,is Co-founder of Studycafe. He is Microsoft Office Specialist and Corporate Trainer of AI Tools, Microsoft Excel.
He is Finance Influencer having more than 250K followers on Social Media. CA Deepak Gupta, is Having more than 14 plus years of experience, and he has Worked with best brands Like, Hero, Wipro, Ericsson before Starting Studycafe. He has Trained more than 20000 Persons in Microsoft Excel, PowerPoint, Power BI, Google Sheet, Google Forms and Other Tools.
StudyCafe
Delhi, Delhi, India
3423My Recent Articles
- UltraTech Cement slapped with Rs. 808.78 Cr Income Tax Demand
- GST: High Court upheld constitutional validity of Section 16(2)(c), asks government to address ITC issues of genuine purchasers
- Old vs New Tax Regime for Tax Year 2026-27
- High court criticizes Income Tax Department for not releasing ITR Utilities despite 11 years of directions
- Fino Payments Bank CEO Rishi Gupta Gets Bail in GST Case, Bank Clarifies No Direct Link
Up Next
Loading suggestions…
Recent Posts

All Posts

Recent Posts

All Posts








