Benami Transactions Criminal Liability
What is a Benami Transaction?
A benami transaction is a transaction in which a property is transferred to or held by one person, but the consideration (payment) is provided by another person. The property is held “in the name of” the benamidar (the person in whose name the property is held), but the real owner is someone else.
Legal Framework
The Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 (amended and renamed as Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016) deals with such transactions.
The law prohibits benami transactions and provides for the confiscation of benami properties.
It also prescribes criminal penalties for benami transactions, including imprisonment and fines.
Criminal Liability in Benami Transactions
If a person is found guilty of entering into or holding benami properties, they can be punished with imprisonment up to 3 years, or fine, or both.
The prosecution must prove that the transaction was benami, i.e., the property was held by one person but the consideration was paid by another.
The law aims to curb black money and tax evasion through fake transactions.
Important Case Laws on Benami Transactions and Criminal Liability
1. K.S. Radhakrishnan v. Union of India (2018) 7 SCC 433
Facts:
The appellant challenged the constitutional validity of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016, especially the criminal penalties imposed.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the Act, observing that the legislation is a reasonable exercise of the state's power to curb black money and illegal transactions.
Significance:
Confirmed that criminal liability under the Benami Act is constitutional and legitimate.
2. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Dubai Aluminium Co. Ltd. (2000) 245 ITR 262 (SC)
Facts:
Though primarily an income tax case, the Supreme Court discussed benami transactions in the context of tax evasion.
Judgment:
The Court held that benami transactions can be used to defeat tax laws and such transactions are liable to be scrutinized and penalized.
Significance:
Established the connection between benami transactions and fraudulent financial practices attracting criminal consequences.
3. DDA v. Skipper Construction Co. (2000) 4 SCC 622
Facts:
The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) contended that a property transaction was benami and thus void.
Judgment:
The Court observed that where the person in whose name the property is held is not the real owner and the transaction is benami, it can be invalidated.
Significance:
Shows judicial support for penalizing benami transactions and protecting legitimate ownership.
4. D.K. Yadav v. J.M.A. Industries Ltd. (1993) 4 SCC 54
Facts:
This case dealt with benami shares and the liabilities attached to them.
Judgment:
The Court held that benami shares can be disregarded and those behind the transaction can be held liable.
Significance:
Reinforces the principle that benami transactions attract civil and criminal consequences.
5. State of Maharashtra v. Gajanan Bhaskar Bansode (2014) 13 SCC 665
Facts:
The accused was charged with benami property transactions to avoid legal obligations.
Judgment:
The Court held that intentional concealment of real ownership through benami transactions amounts to criminal offense attracting penalties under the Benami Act.
Significance:
This case affirms criminal liability for benami transactions done to defeat the law.
Summary Table of Cases
| Case | Issue | Key Principle | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|
| K.S. Radhakrishnan v. Union of India | Validity of criminal penalties | Criminal liability under Benami Act valid | Upheld the Act |
| Commissioner of IT v. Dubai Aluminium | Benami transactions and tax evasion | Benami transactions facilitate tax evasion | Transactions subject to scrutiny |
| DDA v. Skipper Construction Co. | Ownership and benami transaction | Benami transactions can be invalidated | Support for confiscation of benami property |
| D.K. Yadav v. J.M.A. Industries Ltd. | Benami shares and liability | Benami shares can be disregarded | Criminal and civil liability upheld |
| State of Maharashtra v. Gajanan Bansode | Concealment through benami property | Concealment leads to criminal liability | Penalized under Benami Act |
Additional Notes:
Burden of proof: The law places the burden on the claimant to prove the transaction is not benami once suspicion arises.
Properties held benami are liable for confiscation by the government.
The law covers all kinds of properties, including land, shares, and movable property.
The Act provides for the constitution of Adjudicating Authorities and Appellate Tribunals for disputes.
RELATED Blog
0 comments