Appellant had received advance salary from her employer under oral contract. Respondent passed Provisional Attachment Order under sub-section (3) of section 24 for provisionally attaching bank account of appellant. Appellant submitted that she had used money to repay her debts and returned remaining amount to management upon insistence of Income tax Authorities and did not deposit any amount whatsoever in her bank account and thus was not holding any benami property. However, respondent completely disregarding statements of appellant, passed Attachment order under section 24(4)(a)(i), continuing provisional attachment of property already made.  Tribunal held that here was no material on record to show that appellant owned money illegitimately .From entire record, it had not been established that appellant had at any point of time hatched any conspiracy with employer in order to conceal any cash amount . Whether 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. Existence of ‘benami’ transaction has to be proved by authorities i.e. person who allege transaction . Authority had purely gone on premise that cash was transferred from one person to another, with an object to defeat, demonetization, which was insufficient to establish a ‘benami’ transaction. Accordingly   order would not be sustainable and attached properties were to be released forthwith.