By notice under section 24(1) of the Act, the respondent-authorities proposed to treat the constructions being raised by the petitioner on her plot to be a benami transaction, being carried out by the petitioner on behalf of her son-in-law. The plot in question was purchased by the petitioner by a sale deed dated April 23, 2016. By notice under section 24(3) the property was provisionally attached. On a writ petition allowing the petition, the Court held  that the Act was amended with effect from October 25, 2016. The sale deed of the petitioner was admittedly prior to the amendment. The purchase of the land being prior to the coming into force of the amendment to the Benami Transactions Act, 1988 no proceedings with regard to it could be initiated by the Department.That the total value of the constructions in dispute was around Rs.1.05 crores and out of that sum an amount of Rs. 95 lakhs had been transferred to the builder from the bank account of the petitioner herself. Admittedly, the construction of the house was still under way, when the show-cause notice was issued. The mere statement of the contractor without any substantial supportive evidence is made the basis of the entire proceedings. Such a mere statement without any supportive evidence was not under law sufficient material in the possession of an Initiating Officer to arrive at a reason to believe that constructions were benami. The contractor had not given any reason for making such a statement, and the Department had also not even asked him on what basis he was making the statement. There was not even an iota of material placed by the Department before the court, referred to in the show-cause notice, on the basis of which the court could conclude that a reason to believe can be arrived at. Admittedly, the petitioner had already submitted her Income-tax returns for the relevant period and the proceedings were not yet completed. In the absence thereof the Department also could not claim that her earnings for the relevant year were beyond her known sources of income. There was no material in the possession of the Initiating Officer sufficient to believe that the assessee was a benamidar of her son-in-law, with regard to the constructions in question for initiating proceedings under section 24(1) of the Act. That no material had been referred to by the Initiating Officer in the attachment order or placed before the court which could demonstrate that the property was likely to be sold requiring him to resort to provisional attachment under section 24(3).  The order of provisional attachment was without any basis.