The assessee-company purchased property in its name from various sellers on 2-5-2011. The Initiating Officer invoked amended section 24(1) and issued notice to assessee on ground that said property was benami property. The Hon’ble High Court, thus, held that revenue could not apply amended definition of ‘benami property’ and ‘benami transaction’ on basis of Benami Transactions Amendment Act for immovable property which was purchased much prior to said amendment and quashed the impugned order. Thus, 2016 Act could only be applied prospectively. On appeal, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India initially ruled that Section 3 of the unamended 1988 Act was unconstitutional due to being manifestly arbitrary, which also rendered Section 5 unconstitutional. This decision meant that authorities could not initiate or continue criminal prosecution or confiscation proceedings for transactions that occurred before the enforcement of the 2016 Act, which commenced on October 25, 2016. However, the Hon’ble Supreme court left the questions open to be adjudicated as it was not concerned with the constitutionality of the independent proceedings contemplated under the 2016 Amendment Act.  Further, a review petition was filed which was allowed and restored for fresh adjudication as there was no challenge to the constitutional validity of the unamended provisions and the submissions of parties recorded in the judgement did not squarely address the issue of constitutional validity.