Benami Transactions Act And Criminal Liability
What are Benami Transactions?
A Benami transaction is a transaction where the property is held by or transferred to one person, but the consideration (payment) is provided by another person.
The person in whose name the property is held is called the benamidar (fake owner), and the person who provides the consideration is the beneficial owner.
The property is essentially held “in the name of another”, often to conceal the real owner or to evade taxes and legal obligations.
Purpose of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 (and the 2016 Amendment)
To prohibit benami transactions and the right to recover property held benami.
To prevent tax evasion and money laundering.
To attach and confiscate benami properties.
The 2016 Amendment made the law stricter, providing criminal penalties including imprisonment.
Key Provisions Relevant to Criminal Liability
Section 3: Prohibits benami transactions.
Section 4: Property held benami is liable for confiscation.
Section 7: Adjudicating authority for benami properties.
Section 8: Confiscation of benami property.
Section 24: Penalty for benami transactions – imprisonment up to 3 years or fine or both.
Section 24A (introduced in 2016): Prosecution of persons involved in benami transactions.
Nature of Criminal Liability
Criminal liability arises if a person enters into a benami transaction.
Both the benamidar and the beneficial owner can be held liable.
The penalty includes imprisonment and/or fine.
The Act empowers authorities to attach benami property without notice and initiate confiscation proceedings.
Important Case Laws on Benami Transactions and Criminal Liability
1. K. S. Jagannathan v. Income Tax Officer (1974)
(Supreme Court)
Facts:
The case involved a property registered in the name of a third person but purchased with the petitioner’s money.
Issue:
Whether the property was held benami and the petitioner liable to tax on such property.
Holding:
The Court held that a benami transaction is one where the person on record is not the real owner.
The petitioner was held liable since the property was effectively his.
Significance:
Established principles regarding benami transactions before the 1988 Act.
Laid down the test to identify the real beneficial owner.
2. State of Haryana v. Mukesh Kumar (2005)
(Punjab & Haryana High Court)
Facts:
A property was purchased in the name of a person who had no source of income, while the money came from another.
Issue:
Whether this constituted a benami transaction attracting criminal liability.
Holding:
The Court held this was a benami transaction.
Imposed penalties under relevant provisions.
Affirmed that the transaction was designed to defeat the revenue.
Significance:
Reinforced the criminal consequences of benami transactions.
Showed courts’ willingness to pierce the veil of ownership.
3. Kanchan Mukherjee v. Union of India (2016)
(Delhi High Court)
Facts:
A PIL was filed to challenge the constitutional validity of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016.
Issue:
Whether the provisions, especially related to criminal penalties, were violative of fundamental rights.
Holding:
The court upheld the constitutional validity of the Act.
Held that the stringent provisions are necessary to curb black money and benami dealings.
Significance:
Affirmed the government’s authority to impose criminal sanctions.
Paved way for stricter enforcement of the law.
4. Ramesh Kumar v. Union of India (2018)
(Delhi High Court)
Facts:
Involved attachment of property suspected to be benami by the authorities.
Issue:
Whether due process was followed and if attachment was valid.
Holding:
The Court ruled that the authorities have wide powers under the Act.
Due process as laid down under the Act is sufficient; no separate notice is mandatory before attachment.
Upheld attachment and subsequent proceedings.
Significance:
Clarified procedure for attachment under the Benami Act.
Strengthened the investigation and confiscation process.
5. Bhupendra Singh v. Union of India (2020)
(Supreme Court)
Facts:
Appeal against conviction under Section 24 for benami transaction.
Issue:
Whether criminal prosecution under Benami Act requires proof beyond reasonable doubt of benami intent.
Holding:
The Supreme Court held that prosecution must establish benami nature clearly.
Mere suspicion is not sufficient.
Burden of proof lies on the prosecution.
Significance:
Ensured fair trial standards in benami prosecutions.
Balanced enforcement with protection of accused’s rights.
6. Anil Kumar v. State of Haryana (2022)
(Punjab & Haryana High Court)
Facts:
Criminal case against person for holding property benami to evade taxes.
Issue:
Whether such holding constitutes criminal offence and warrant punishment.
Holding:
Court convicted accused under Section 24.
Emphasized deterrent effect of criminal penalties.
Ordered confiscation under Section 8.
Significance:
Demonstrated active enforcement of criminal sanctions.
Affirmed that benami transactions attract stringent punishment.
Summary Table of Case Law Principles
| Case Name | Principle Highlighted |
|---|---|
| K.S. Jagannathan v. ITO | Definition and identification of beneficial ownership |
| State of Haryana v. Mukesh Kumar | Criminal liability for benami transactions |
| Kanchan Mukherjee v. Union of India | Constitutional validity of Benami Act (2016 Amendment) |
| Ramesh Kumar v. Union of India | Validity of attachment without prior notice |
| Bhupendra Singh v. Union of India | Burden of proof and fair trial standards in prosecution |
| Anil Kumar v. State of Haryana | Enforcement of criminal sanctions and confiscation |
Conclusion
The Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act is a powerful tool to combat black money, tax evasion, and corruption.
It creates strict criminal liability for entering into or facilitating benami transactions.
The Act empowers authorities to attach and confiscate benami properties even without prior notice.
Courts have upheld the constitutional validity of criminal penalties and clarified procedural aspects.
However, courts also ensure the right to fair trial by requiring the prosecution to prove benami nature beyond doubt.
RELATED Blog
0 comments