Dismissing the appeals against the single judge order the Court held that in the absence of any provision of law and compelling circumstances warranting the authorities to provide an opportunity of cross-examination of witnesses, whose statements had been relied on by the authorities, at the stage of proceedings under section 24 of the 1988 Act, the plea raised by the assessees in this regard, could not be countenanced. The assessees had failed to furnish the necessary documents to substantiate their stand that the alleged transactions were not benami transactions. The Deputy (Commissioner) after making enquiry and calling for reports or evidence and taking into account all the relevant materials and with the prior approval of the approving authority had passed separate orders under section 24(4) , continuing the provisional attachment of the property till the passing of the order by the adjudicating authority under section 26(3) , which were provisional in nature. The provisions of law mandate the authorities to furnish the requested documents, particulars or evidence and provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessees only at the stage of adjudication proceedings and there is no provision under the Act to provide an opportunity to the appellants to cross-examine the witnesses at the preliminary stage. Therefore, there was no error in the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Benami Prohibition), as an interim measure, continuing the provisional attachment order of the property in question till the passing of the order under section 26(3) by the adjudicating authority. The court had rightly affirmed the orders and directed the authorities to proceed further in accordance with law.( AY.2012-13 to 2018-19)