The Initiating Officer issued a notice under section 24(1), directing the Assessee to show cause as to why properties should not be treated as benami properties. Subsequently, the company’s and its directors’ properties were provisionally attached. The Assessee challenged the provisional attachment before the High Court.

The Court held that the provisional attachment is merely a preliminary step. Given the existence of material raising suspicion that the property was benami, the suspicion is deemed sufficient for the initiating authority to form an opinion on provisional attachment. The Act incorporates various checks and balances, eliminating the necessity for court intervention. The Assessee was advised to approach the adjudicating officer to explain why the provisional attachment order is bad in law.