Question map
With reference to the 'Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 (PBPT Act)', consider the following statements : 1. A property transaction is not treated as a benami transaction if the owner of the property is not aware of the transaction. 2. Properties held benami are liable for confiscation by the Government. 3. The Act provides for three authorities for investigations but does not provide for any appellate mechanism. Which of the statements given above is/are correct ?
Explanation
The correct answer is option B (Statement 2 only).
The Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 (as amended in 2016) seeks to curb black money and money laundering by prohibiting benami transactions irrespective of the method by which the benami property is acquired.[1]
**Statement 1 is incorrect** because the Act does not provide an exemption based on the owner's lack of awareness. A benami transaction includes arrangements where the person providing the consideration is not traceable or fictitious[2], and the definition is not contingent on the apparent owner's knowledge.
**Statement 2 is correct** as the amended law empowers income tax authorities to provisionally attach benami properties which can eventually be confiscated.[4]
**Statement 3 is incorrect** because while the Act provides for an Initiating Officer and Approving Authority for investigations[5], it also provides an appellate mechanism where any aggrieved person may prefer an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal within 45 days from the date of the order.[6]
Sources- [1] Indian Economy, Nitin Singhania .(ed 2nd 2021-22) > Chapter 5: Indian Tax Structure and Public Finance > PROHIBITION OF BENAMI TRANSACTIONS (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2016 > p. 89
- [2] Indian Economy, Nitin Singhania .(ed 2nd 2021-22) > Chapter 5: Indian Tax Structure and Public Finance > 5.10 Indian Economy > p. 90
- [3] Indian Economy, Nitin Singhania .(ed 2nd 2021-22) > Chapter 5: Indian Tax Structure and Public Finance > 5.10 Indian Economy > p. 90
- [4] Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM. > Chapter 39: After Nehru... > Disbanding Planning Commission and Setting up NITI Aayog > p. 783
- [5] https://www.indiabudget.gov.in/budget2019-20/doc/memo.pdf
- [6] https://www.indiabudget.gov.in/budget2023-24/doc/memo.pdf
PROVENANCE & STUDY PATTERN
Guest previewThis question was a direct fallout of the 2016 Benami Amendment, which was headline news post-demonetization. While Statements 1 and 2 are standard current affairs, Statement 3 is a classic 'Administrative Law' trap. Strategy: When studying Acts, never skip the 'Institutional Architecture' (Who investigates? Who adjudicates? Where is the appeal?).
This question can be broken into the following sub-statements. Tap a statement sentence to jump into its detailed analysis.
- Statement 1: Under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, is a transaction excluded from being treated as benami merely because the apparent owner of the property was unaware of the transaction?
- Statement 2: Under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, are properties held benami liable to confiscation/forfeiture by the Government?
- Statement 3: Does the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 provide for three authorities to conduct investigations into benami transactions?
- Statement 4: Does the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 provide for an appellate mechanism or appellate authority to challenge orders under the Act?
- States the Amendment seeks to prohibit benami transactions 'irrespective of the method by which the benami property is acquired' — indicating classification does not depend on acquisition method.
- Implied scope covers varied circumstances, so apparent owner's lack of awareness (a manner of acquisition/possession) would not automatically exclude benami character.
- Defines benami situations by focus on consideration (e.g., provider untraceable or fictitious) rather than the apparent owner's subjective knowledge.
- Emphasises objective indicia (source/traceability of consideration), supporting view that mere unawareness of apparent owner is not determinative.
- Notes the 2016 amendment tightened the law and empowered authorities to attach and confiscate benami properties.
- Reflects legislative intent to treat benami transactions strictly, suggesting procedural facts like the apparent owner's ignorance would not negate benami treatment.
This statement analysis shows book citations, web sources and indirect clues. The first statement (S1) is open for preview.
Login with Google to unlock all statements.
This statement analysis shows book citations, web sources and indirect clues. The first statement (S1) is open for preview.
Login with Google to unlock all statements.
This statement analysis shows book citations, web sources and indirect clues. The first statement (S1) is open for preview.
Login with Google to unlock all statements.
This tab shows concrete study steps: what to underline in books, how to map current affairs, and how to prepare for similar questions.
Login with Google to unlock study guidance.
Discover the small, exam-centric ideas hidden in this question and where they appear in your books and notes.
Login with Google to unlock micro-concepts.
Access hidden traps, elimination shortcuts, and Mains connections that give you an edge on every question.
Login with Google to unlock The Vault.