Provisional and Confirmed Benami Attachment Valid Despite Prior PMLA Attachment Due to Non-Disclosure

By | July 27, 2026
0 Comment

Provisional and Confirmed Benami Attachment Valid Despite Prior PMLA Attachment Due to Non-Disclosure

Provisional and Confirmed Benami Attachment Valid Despite Prior PMLA Attachment Due to Non-Disclosure

Issue

Whether an Initiating Officer can validly pass and continue a provisional attachment under Section 24 of the PBPT Act, 1988, leading to confirmation under Section 26(3), when the appellants failed to disclose that the properties were already attached by the Enforcement Directorate under PMLA.

Facts

  • Property Attachment under PBPT Act: The Initiating Officer passed a provisional attachment order under Section 24 of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions (PBPT) Act, 1988, regarding the subject properties.

  • Prior PMLA Action: The properties in question had already been attached by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

  • Non-Disclosure by Appellants: The appellants failed to disclose the existing PMLA attachment to the Initiating Officer during the proceedings under Section 24 of the PBPT Act.

  • Confirmation of Attachment: The provisional attachment was subsequently confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority under Section 26(3) of the PBPT Act.

  • Appellants’ Challenge: The appellants challenged the attachment, contending that there was no immediate apprehension of alienation since the properties were already attached under PMLA.

Decision

  • The tribunal/court held that the Initiating Officer was fully justified in passing and continuing the provisional attachment order under Section 24.

  • The non-disclosure of the existing PMLA attachment by the appellants disentitled them from claiming relief based on the absence of apprehension of alienation.

  • The confirmation of the provisional attachment under Section 26(3) of the PBPT Act was sustained.

  • The issue was decided in favour of the revenue.

Key Takeaways

  • Duty of Full Disclosure: Assessees/appellants must fully disclose all relevant facts—including parallel proceedings or attachments by other agencies like the ED—to the Initiating Officer.

  • Independent Enforcement Powers: Parallel statutory attachments under different acts (e.g., PMLA and PBPT Act) can co-exist; a prior PMLA attachment does not automatically render a subsequent Benami attachment invalid or unnecessary.

  • Validity of Attachment under PBPT Act: Failure to inform the authorities about existing encumbrances or attachments prevents the party from arguing against provisional attachment on grounds of lack of risk or immediate need.

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SAFEMA , NEW DELHI BENCH
Manish Saraogi
v.
DCIT
BALESH KUMAR and Rajesh Malhotra, Member
FPA-PBPT 902, 903, 907 and 908 (BPL) OF 2019
JULY  2, 2026
Baibhav G.G., Adv. for the Appellant. Kanhaiya Singhal, SPP and Amrita Kumari, Adv. for the Respondent.
ORDER
Rajesh Malhotra, Member.-The present appeal u/s 46(1) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, is filed by the appellants against the Confirmation Order dated 20.06.2019 passed by the Adjudicating Authority u/s 26(3) of the PBPT Act, in reference No.882/2018, whereby 11 properties (comprised in 21 Khasra numbers) in the name of Hemlata Saraogi and 5 properties in the name of Manish Saraogi were confirmed for attachment as Benamidars of the properties, which were purchased by Satish Saraogi & Sharad Saraogi, the beneficial owners through their sources. The details of the properties are mentioned in the table at page 3 to 11 of the impugned order.
2. As per the facts of the case, the O/o BPU, Bhopal, the Initiating Officer, in order to ascertain the source of funds in the hands of Smt. Hemlata Saraogi & Shri Manish Saraogi for purchasing the many properties in cash, recorded their statements on oath, in which Smt. Hemlata Saraogi was enquired about her PAN. She has denied about the same and she stated that her ITRs are filed by Shri Satish Saraogi. She was specifically confronted with the list of the properties in her name as mentioned in Show-Cause Notice dated 27.02.2018 and was asked whether she is aware of these properties or not. In response, she categorically denied before IO about the ownership of these properties. She also stated that if there was any property in her name then it would be in the knowledge of her brother in-law Shri Satish Saraogi.
Further Shri Manish Saraogi, stated to IO that currently he is not doing any business and, in the past, he used to issue cheques after accepting cash from various entities in lieu of commission. He also stated that his Income Tax Returns (ITRs) were filed by his brother Shri Satish Saraogi. Shri Manish Saraogi stated that he is not having any property and if there is any property in his name, then it would be in the knowledge of his brother Shri Satish Saraogi.
IO also recorded the statement on oath of Shri Satish Saraogi to ascertain the facts narrated by Smt. Hemlata Saraogi & Shri Manish Saraogi. During the statement of Shri Satish Saraogi, he has admitted the knowledge of the said properties as well as their transactions. Further he also stated that he manages all the financial affairs and the transactions of immovable properties of Smt. Hemlata Saraogi & Shri Manish Saraogi.
IO has issued summons to the sellers of the provisionally attached immovable properties. During the statement of one of the sellers namely Akash Nawani, stated that he had contacted Shri Satish Saraogi for selling his land and he had received two bearer cheque of Rs. 7,00,000/- & Rs. 13,00,000/- from Shri Satish Saraogi only, but these cheques were issued from the IDBI Account of Smt. Hemlata Saraogi. He also stated that though he contacted Shri Satish Saraogi for selling his land, but the registry was done in the name of Smt. Hemlata Saraogi. He also stated that he doesn’t know Smt. Hemlata Saraogi.
Further, the statements of various sellers were also recorded by IO, which revealed that the sellers received the sale consideration of their lands in Cash from one person namely Shri Harchatiya Choudhary and they (seller) also stated that they don’t know Smt. Hemlata Saraogi and Shri Manish Saraogi and also never met any of them. Further, the statement on Oath of Shri Harchatiya Choudhary was also recorded by IO, in which he also stated that he does not know any of Smt. Hemlata Saraogi and Shri Manish Saraogi and they never met any of them. Thus, on the basis of the statement of the sellers and Shri Harchatiya Choudhary it was clear to IO that the sale consideration of the said immovable properties has not been provided by Smt. Hemlata Saraogi and Shri Manish Saraogi, but by someone else.
Hence, IO concluded that both Smt. Hemlata Saraogi & Shri Manish Saraogi are completely unaware of the properties mentioned in the Show Cause Notice dated 27.02.2018, but Shri Satish Saraogi has the knowledge of these properties and as he (Shri Satish Saraogi) also manages the financial affairs and transactions of immovable properties.
Smt. Hemlata Saraogi & Shri Manish Saraogi have just signed on various documents on the instructions of Shri Satish Saraogi, and thus, they (Smt. Hemlata Saraogi & Shri Manish Saraogi) have entered into the transactions, where properties are transferred in their names for which the consideration have been paid or provided by Shri Satish Saraogi, and therefore, such transactions are covered under the definition of “Benami Transactions” u/s 2(9)(A) & 2(9)(C) of PBPT.
A Show Cause Notice u/s 24(1) of the PBPT Act 1988 was Issued on 27.02.2018 and subsequently a Provisional Attachment Order u/s 24(3) of the PBPT Act, 1988 was also issued by IO on 27.02.2018 in respect of the properties mentioned in the para 1 Table-1 & Table-ll in which Smt. Hemlata Saraogi was the Benamidar for properties mentioned in Table-1 and Shri Manish Saraogi was the Benamidar for the properties mentioned in Table 2 and the Beneficial Owners for all these properties was to be ascertained.
After the issuance of the above-mentioned Show Cause Notice dated 27.02.2018, the following enquiries have been made by IO:-
During the course of statement Smt. Hemlata Saraogi stated that she is a house wife and she is having PAN, but she is not aware that whether any return of income has been filed or not. During the course of statement when she was asked about the above-mentioned immovable properties in her name as mentioned in Table-1, she stated that as per her knowledge she is not having any immovable properties in her own name. She was specifically confronted with the list of above-mentioned properties in Table-1 and was asked whether she is aware about these properties or not, in response, she categorically denied about the ownership of these properties. She further stated that if any properties are owned by her then it will be in the knowledge of Shri Satish Saraogi.
Further, during the course of statement Shri Manish Saraogi stated that currently he is not doing any business and, in the past, he used to issue cheques after accepting cash from various entities in lieu of commission. He also stated that his return of income was filed by his brother Shri Satish Saraogi. Shri Manish Saraogi was also specifically confronted with the properties held in his name as mentioned in above Table-2, in response he stated that he is not having any immovable properties and further he is completely unaware are of the above properties held in his name as mentioned in Table-2. Further, Shri Manish Saraogi also stated that if any properties are held in his name, then it will be in the knowledge of his brother Shri Satish Saraogi.
During the course of statement u/s 19(i) Mr. Satish Saraogi has admitted the following:-
(a) Shri Satish Saraogi was asked about the details of properties owned in the name of Smt. Hemlata Saraogi & Sh. Manish Saraogi. In response, he stated that there are various immovable properties in the name of Smt. Hemlata Saraogi & Satish Saraogi, the details of which he could state after seeing her books, which are kept with him.
(b) During the course of statement, Shri Satish Saraogi was specifically confronted with the properties held in the name of Smt. Hemlata Saraogi & Sh. Manish Saraogi, as mentioned in Table-1 & II respectively.
In response he stated that these properties are of Smt. Hemlata Saraogi & Sh. Manish Saraogi and he (Shri Satish Saraogi) has the knowledge of transactions of these properties. Further he was also asked about the source of investment in these properties, in response he stated that he could not state the source of investment in these properties and the same he would say after seeing the books of Smt. Hemlata Saraogi.
(c) During the course of statement, Shri Satish Saraogi has also admitted that the books of accounts of Smt. Hemlata Saraogi and Shri Manish Saraogi are with him and he (Shri Satish Saraogi) himself only manages all the financial affairs and also the transactions of the immovable properties of Smt. Hemlata Saraogi and Shri Manish
(d) Further, during the course of statement Shri Satish Saraogi was specifically asked to state the details of all the properties held in the name of Shri Manish Saraogi and Smt. Hemlata Saraogi. In response, Shri Satish Saragoi stated that there are several immovable properties in the name of Shri Manish Saraogi and Smt. Hemlata Saraogi in Katni, Panna and within the sphere of 50 km of Katni. He was unable to state the exact details viz. Location of the properties, seller name etc. and said to produce the said information within one week. But he never produced any such documents so far. In his earlier statements dated 16.01.2018 and dated 22.01.2018, Shri Satish Saraogi said to produce various documents to substantiate the sources of investment in the said properties but he never produced any such documents.
For further investigation, summons was also issued by IO to the sellers of the properties. Seller (of property at S.No. 5 & 11 of Table -1) namely, Akash Nawani, attended the office of IO and his statement on Oath was recorded. During the course of the statement, Shri Akash Nawani was specifically asked that to whom he had contacted for selling his said land. In response he said that he only contacted shri Satish Saraogi for selling his land and sold his land to Shri Satish Saraogi only, but the registry was made in the name of Hemlata Saraogi by Shri Satish Saraogi only.
Further, during the course of statement, Shri Akash Nawani was also asked by IO that from whom he had received the sale consideration of Rs. 20,00,000/- for his land. In response Shri Akash Nawani said that he had received two bearer’s cheque of Rs. 7,00,000/- & Rs. 13,00,000/-from Shri Satish Saraogi only, but the cheques were issued from the bank account of IDBI Katni of Smt. Hemlata Saraogi and the same has been deposited by Shri Akash Nawani in IDBI Bank Katni and the amount of 20,00,000/- was withdrawn in cash by Shri Akash Nawani.
Further statements on oath of various sellers of the properties mentioned in above Table-1 and Table-2 were recorded to ascertain the source of sale consideration. During the statements, the sellers stated that they have received money in cash from a broker named Shri Harchatiya Choudhary and they all also stated that they did not know both Shri Manish Saraogi & Smt. Hemlata Saraogi and also never met both Shri Manish Saraogi & Smt. Hemlata Saraogi.
Further statement on Oath of Shri Harchatiya Choudhary was recorded. During the statement he stated that he has never met Smt. Hemlata Saraogi & Shri Manish Saraogi and even does not know them. From his statement it was apparent to the IO that the Sale consideration of the said immovable properties is not provided by Smt. Hemlata Saraogi & Shri Manish Saraogi, but by someone else.
Statement of Shri Kishan Lal Choudhary, was also recorded by the IO and he revealed that the consideration for acquiring the lands located in Imlia Tehsil, Shahnagar, Panna were provided by Shri Sharad Saraogi only and the registries were got done in the name of Shri Manish Saraogi & Shri Hemlata Saraogi. These registries were only in the knowledge of Shri Sharad Saraogi only. The Benamidars were found completely unknown regarding these properties. Thus, it is evident that the Beneficial Owner Shri Sharad Saraogi has not disclosed these properties before the Benamidar viz. Shri Manish Saraogi & Smt. Hemlata Saragoi in order to derive the direct or indirect future benefit from the impugned properties. Thus, it clearly established that Shri Sharad Saraogi is the Beneficial Owner for the impugned lands.
Both Smt. Hemlata Saraogi & Shri Manish Saraogi have stated in their statements that they don’t have any property owned in their names and they are also completely unaware of the respective properties mentioned in Table 1 & Table-2 and further Shri Satish Saraogi also admitted that he (Satish Saraogi) has managed all the financial affairs and also the transactions of the immovable properties of Smt. Hemlata Saraogi and Shri Manish Saraogi. However, Shri Satish Saraogi could not explain to IO the source of investment in the above-mentioned immovable properties in Table -1 & Table-2. On the other hand, Smt. Hemlata Saraogi & Shri Manish Saraogi also could not explain the source of investment made in the above-mentioned immovable properties in Table -1 & Table-2. Therefore, such transactions are covered under the definition of PBPT Act, 1988 prior to amendment, and also such transactions are covered under the amended definitions 2(9)(A) & 2(9)(C) of the PBPT Act.
In view of the above facts, IO concluded that it is found that Shri Satish Saraogi is managing all the affairs relating to the transactions of immovable properties of Smt. Hemlata Saraogi & Shri Manish Saraogi, and as Shri Satish Saraogi could not substantiate the source of investment made in above immovable properties (mentioned in Table-1 & Table-II and the registered owners are completely unaware about the above properties mentioned in Table-1 & Table-2 respectively, so it makes clear that the Benamidars i.e. Smt. Hemlata Saraogi & Shri Manish Saraogi are only signing on the various documents on the instruction of Shri Satish Saraogi, and thus, they have entered into transactions of the properties mentioned in above Table -1 & Table-2 respectively, whereas the consideration of these properties have been provided by Shri Satish Saraogi.
In view of the above it is found that the immovable properties mentioned in above Table-I & Table-II, are the Benami properties and Smt. Hemlata Saraogi & Shri Manish Saraogi are the Benamidars in respect of their respective properties mentioned in the above Table-1 & Table-ll and Shri Satish Saraogi is the actual beneficial owner of all these properties. Accordingly, IO decided that provisional attachment of the properties of the ‘Beneficiary’ should continue u/s 24(4)(a)(i) of the Act, vide Second PAO dated 24.05.2018, till the passing of the order by the Adjudicating Authority u/s 26(3) of the PBPT Act. Thereafter, reference No. R-882/2018 was sent to the Adjudicating Authority for confirmation of the PAO.
On notice by the Adjudicating Authority, the benamidar and beneficial owner filed their respective replies and the rejoinder was also filed by the Initiating Officer. Thereafter, after hearing the rival submissions, the Adjudicating Authority confirmed the PAO u/s 26(3) of the Act.
Aggrieved by the said order, appellant filed the present appeal.
3. During the arguments, Ld. Counsel for all the appellants without controverting the facts & allegations or pressing the appeals on all the grounds, raised only the following common issue:-
Whether properties already provisionally attached under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), vide Provisional Attachment Order No. 02/2017 dated 17.11.2017, could again be attached under Section 24 of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988?
He pointed out that prior to the attachment under PBPT Act, the Enforcement Directorate issued the Provisional Attachment Order No. 02/2017 dated 17.11.2017 under Section 5(1) of PMLA in ECIR/INSZO/ 01/2017/1262. The said attachment was confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority under PMLA vide order dated 04.05.2018. Appeals filed by the appellants under section 26 of PMLA, before this Appellate Tribunal was also dismissed vide order dated 18.08.2025 in FPA-PMLA-2386-2388/ IDR/2018. The said attachment under PMLA still continues to subsist, though the appeal is pending before the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court, Principal Bench Jabalpur. Accordingly, he stressed that once the property stood attached under PMLA, it was legally incapable of alienation and hence, there was no necessity on the part of Initiating Officer/DCIT to make second attachment of the same properties under PBPT Act. He pointed out Section 24(3), which permits provisional attachment, only if, the Initiating Officer forms an opinion that the property may be alienated during the notice period. However, where the property already stands attached under PMLA, and a confirmed attachment order subsists, there can be no apprehension of alienation, and hence, question of second attachment under PBPT Act, does not arise. Accordingly, he argued that the jurisdictional precondition under Section 24(3) therefore fails. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment of this appellate Tribunal in case of Maple Destination & Dream Build Pvt. Ltd. v. Initiating Officer, Chandigarh, (SAFEMA – New Delhi)/ FPA-PBPT- 2187/CHD/2022 (Final Order dated 16.07.2025), wherein it is held that:
“We have considered the rival submission of the parties and find that despite the same property provisionally attached under the Act of 2002, and was confirmed on 10.08.2017. The Respondent herein attached the same property quo the Appellant under the Act of 1988 in ignorance of Section 24(3) of the Act of 1988. The fact about the earlier attachment of the property under the Act of 2002 was noted by the Adjudicating Authority in para 36 of the impugned order and is quoted thus: –

“In consequence of the CBI’s FIR, investigations were initiated under PML Act, 2002 vide ECIR No. ECIR/HQ/HIU/2015 dated 27.10 2015 by Directorate of Enforcement New Delhi. The Provisional Attachment Order passed for attachment of the captioned property under PML Act, 2002 has been confirmed by the Hon’ble Adjudicating Authority vide its order dated 10.08.2017.”

The perusal of the para quoted above reveals acknowledgment of the Adjudicating Authority about previous attachment of the same property under the Act of 2002 and therefore, there could not have been apprehension for alienation of the property but ignoring the aforesaid, the Initiating authority passed an order of attachment and has been confirmed by the impugned order. We, therefore, find reasons to cause interference in the impugned order when the property of the appellant was subject matter of attachment in the proceedings under the Act, 2002 for which ECIR was recorded on 27.10.2015 followed by an order for provisional attachment of the property and confirmation by the Adjudicating Authority under the Act, 2002, by the order dated 10.08.2017 accordingly, impugned order for the property which was under attachment under the Act of 2002 is quashed”.
He contended that the facts of the present case are quite identical and hence, the present appeals be allowed, as there was no apprehension that properties were likely to be alienated.
4. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the respondent department has strongly opposed for allowing this appeal on this ground and contended that it was the duty on the part of the appellants to point out the previous attachment of the said properties by ED under PMLA, when they appeared in pursuance to notice dated 27.02.2018, and before the passing of second PAO dated 24.05.2018 under PBPT. The appellants have not disclosed this material information and thus they are not entitled to take this plea at this belated stage on account of active concealment. IO was ignorant about the previous attachment dated 17.11.2017 under PMLA. He argued that if the fact of previous attachment was brought to the knowledge of the IO, then he would not have passed the Second PAO dated 24.05.2018 under PBPT Act U/s 24(4)(a)(i) of the PBPT. He argued that if the first PAO dated 27.02.2018 is deemed to be unjustified and not necessary, even then the IO had the power to attach the property U/s 24(4)(b)(i) and thereby he would have adopted this alternate procedure. He pointed out that the entire attachment proceedings, which are even confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority cannot be set-aside on this hyper-technical issue, when there is an alternate procedure U/s 24(4)(b)(i), where properties are not attached under section 24(3) of the PBPT Act. He pointed out that judgment of this Appellate Tribunal in case of Maple Destination & Dream Build Pvt. Ltd. (supra), is not applicable in any manner, as the provision U/s 24(4)(b)(i) is neither pointed out by any party, nor the same is discussed in the said order. He also stressed that appellants failed to explain as to how their right is prejudiced by passing of the First PAO dated 27.02.2018 under PBPT Act, when they are not arguing this case on other aspects. This points towards the direction that on merits, the appellants have no case in their favour, as they failed to explain the sources of funds for purchasing the properties. He stressed that seeing the fact that their properties are also attached under PMLA points towards the direction that the proceeds of crime were diverted by the beneficial owners for purchasing the properties in the name of banamidars. Prayer is accordingly made to dismiss the present appeals.
5. Ld. Counsel for the appellants has not made any rebuttal arguments and reiterated his point on the issue of previous attachment under PMLA as not maintainable.
6. The whole argument of Ld. Counsel for the appellants is based on issue of first attachment u/s 24(3) of PBPT Act, without pressing for the other grounds mentioned in the grounds of appeal. Hence, Section 24 of the PBPT Act, is reproduced as under:-
24. Notice and attachment of property involved in benami transaction:
“(1) Where the Initiating Officer, on the basis of material in his possession, has reason to believe that any person is a benamidar in respect of a property, he may, after recording reasons in writing, issue a notice to the person to show cause within such time as may be specified in the notice why the property should not be treated as benami property.
(2) Where a notice under sub-section (1) specifies any property as being held by a benamidar referred to in that sub-section, a copy of the notice shall also be issued to the beneficial owner if his identity is known.
(3) Where the Initiating Officer is of the opinion that the person in possession of the property held benami may alienate the property during the period specified in the notice, he may, with the previous approval of the Approving Authority, by order in writing, attach provisionally the property in the manner as may be prescribed, for a period not exceeding ninety days from the last day of the month in which the notice under sub-section (1) is issued.
(4) The Initiating Officer, after making such inquires and calling for such reports or evidence as he deems fit and taking into account all relevant materials, shall, within a period of ninety days from the last day of the month in which the notice under sub-section (1) is issued, –

(a) where the provisional attachment has been made under sub-section (3), –

(i) pass an order continuing the provisional attachment of the property with the prior approval of the Approving Authority, till the passing of the order by the Adjudicating Authority under sub-section (3) of section 26; or
(ii) revoke the provisional attachment of the property with the prior approval of the Approving Authority;

(b) where provisional attachment has not been made under sub-section (3),-

(i) pass an order provisionally attaching the property with the prior approval of the Approving Authority, till the passing of the order by the Adjudicating Authority under sub-section (3) of section 26; or
(ii) decide not to attach the property as specified in the notice, with the prior approval of the Approving Authority.
(5) Where the Initiating Officer passes an order continuing the provisional attachment of the property under sub-clause (i) of clause (a) of sub-section (4) or passes an order provisionally attaching the property under sub-clause (i) of clause (b) of that sub-section, he shall, within fifteen days from the date of the attachment, draw up a statement of the case and refer it to the Adjudicating Authority”.

Section 24 (3) prescribes following requirements before attaching the property:-

(i) That the Initiating Officer is of the opinion that the person is in possession of a benami property,
(ii) That the Benamidar may alienate the property, during the period specified in the notice,
(iii) The previous approval of the Approving Authority, by order in writing,

Only then the IO can attach provisionally the property for a period not exceeding ninety days from the last day of the month in which the notice under sub-section (1) is issued.

Appellant is not disputing the fulfilment of condition at S.No. (i) & (iii), but he is taking the plea that second condition is not fulfilled for passing the first Provisional Attachment Order, as the property was already under attachment by Directorate of Enforcement under PMLA vide Provisional Attachment Order No. 02/2017 dated 17.11.2017, which was also confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority vide confirmation order dated 04.05.2018 and hence there was no apprehension for alienation of the properties identified, as Benami. Accordingly, it was contended that the first PAO dated 27.02.2018 passed under section 24(3) of the PBPT Act and the subsequent Second PAO dated 24.05.2018 under section 24(4)(a)(i) of PBPT needs to be set-aside, along with the impugned order.
7. We agree with the contention of Ld. Counsel for the respondent department that it was the duty on the part of the appellants to point out the previous attachment of the said properties by ED under PMLA, when they appeared in pursuance to notice dated 27.02.2018. After, receiveing the said knowledge, the IO could have revboked the earlier PAO dated 27.02.2018, and thereafter, after conclusion of investigation, he might have proceeded under section 24(4)(b)(i) of the PBPT Act, instead of passing the second PAO dated 24.05.2018 under section 24(4)(a)(i) PBPT. The appellants have not disclosed the material information of previous attachment under PMLA by ED and thus they are not entitled to take this plea at this belated stage on account of active concealment. There is nothing on record to show that the IO was conscious about the previous attachment dated 17.11.2017 under PMLA. If the previous attachment was brought to the knowledge of the IO, then certainly he would not have passed the Second PAO dated 24.05.2018, without revoking the previous PAO dated 27.02.2018. In absence of attachment u/s 24(3) of the PBPT, the IO had the power to attach the property U/s 24(4)(b)(i), and thus, he would have adopted this alternate procedure. We agree with the contention of Ld. Counsel for the respondent department that the entire attachment proceedings, which are even confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority cannot be set-aside on this hyper-technical issue, when there is a specific alternate procedure U/s 24(4)(b)(i), even if there is no apprehension of alienation of the properties as required in section 24(3) of the PBPT Act. The judgment of this Appellate Tribunal in case of Maple Destination & Dream Build Pvt. Ltd.(supra) relied upon by appellants is not applicable in any manner, as the provision U/s 24(4)(b)(i) is neither pointed out by any party, nor the same is discussed in the said order. Moreover, in the cited judgment the properties of the benamidars (fraudsters) were previously attached by the Joint Registrar to protect the interest of the victims, as the bank officials siphoned sum of Rs. 8.4 Crores meant for distribution of the loans to the agriculturist and for welfare of the farmers, for purchasing the properties in their own names. Hence, present case is quite distinguishable from the said case. Even otherwise, when there is a strong merit in any case, then in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience, the case can not be thrown away on hyper-technical issue. Hence, the present appeals are liable to be dismissed.