Dismissing the appeal of the revenue the Tribunal held that; After amendment, the onus of proving a benami transaction rests entirely on the shoulders of the owner/benamidar. Before amendment, the burden of proof was on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the Benamidar and beneficial owner. Once both are able to discharge their burden of proof as per amended law, then the burden of proof shifts to the prosecution. Once the burden shits upon the IO, the principles of general law available prior to amendment would apply.Accordingly the appeal of revenue was dismissed. (MP-PBPT-163/MUM/2019 (Stay) FPA-PBPT-206/MUM/2018, dt. 26.03.2019)
Akashdeep Iniatiing Officer v. Manpreet Estate LLP (AT PBPT Act), www.itatonline.org
S. 2(9) : Benami transaction–Burden of proof-Property was purchased out of loan proceeds -Burden of proof on revenue-Appeal of revenue was dismissed. [S. 24(3)]