LOK SABHA ___

SYNOPSIS OF DEBATES (Proceedings other than Questions & Answers) ______

Wednesday, July 27, 2016 / Shravana 5, 1938 (Saka) ______

SUBMISSION BY MEMBER

Re: Dope testing in sports

THE MINISTER OF STATE IN THE MINISTRY OF

AGRICULTURE AND FARMERS WELFARE AND MINISTER OF STATE

IN THE MINISTRY OF PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS(SHRI S.S.

AHLUWALIA) replying to the issue raised by several hon. Members said: I will apprise the Government regarding the question raised by the hon. Member to make a statement.

*MATTERS UNDER RULE 377

(i) SHRI SHARAD TRIPATHI laid a statement regarding need to

undertake repair of Khalilabad-Bakhira-Mehdawal road in Sant Kabir

Nagar parliamentary constituency, Uttar Pradesh.

* Laid on the Table as directed by the hon. Speaker. (ii) SHRI KAMAKHYA PRASAD TASA laid a statement regarding

need to provide adequate funds to the Tocklai Tea Research Institute

at Jorhat in Assam.

(iii) SHRIMATI DARSHANA VIKRAM JARDOSH laid a statement

regarding need to conduct proceedings of cases in High Courts in

regional languages.

(iv) SHRIMATI RAKSHATAI KHADSE laid a statement regarding

need to curb illegal sand mining by having a National Policy.

(v) SHRI DEVENDRA SINGH BHOLE laid a statement regarding

need to probe the shoddy construction work of sewerage and pipe line

system under Jawahar Lal Nehru National Urban Renewal System in

Kanpur Nagar, Uttar Pradesh.

(vi) SHRI RAOSAHEB PATIL DANVE laid a statement regarding need

to construct a railway line between Jalgaon and Solapur in

Maharashtra.

(vii) SHRI JUGAL KISHORE laid a statement regarding need to provide

compensation to farmers in Jammu and Kashmir who lost their land

due to fencing along the border. (viii) SHRI RAM SWAROOP SHARMA laid a statement regarding need

to set up a special group to report on the problems afflicting the hydel

sector in Himachal Pradesh.

(ix) SHRI BHAIRON PRASAD MISHRA laid a statement regarding

need to construct school building for Kendriya Vidyalaya at

Chitrakoot, Uttar Pradesh.

(x) SHRI SATISH CHANDRA DUBEY laid a statement regarding

need to facilitate environmental clearance for

construction/development of stretch of National Highway

No. 28B passing through Valmiki Nagar parliamentary constituency,

Bihar.

(xi) SHRI LAXMI NARAYAN YADAV laid a statement regarding need

to bring civilian areas of various Cantonments under nearby

Corporation or Municipality.

(xii) SHRI BHANU PRATAP SINGH VERMA laid a statement

regarding need to set up an Agriculture Engineering Institute in Jalaun

district of Uttar Pradesh.

(xiii) SHRI BHARAT SINGH laid a statement regarding need to provide

clean and safe drinking water to people in Ballia parliamentary

constituency, Uttar Pradesh. (xiv) DR. KIRIT SOMAIYA laid a statement regarding need to provide

land for setting up of a Cancer Research Centre & Hospital at

Bhandup in Mumbai.

(xv) SHRI SUBHASH CHANDRA BAHERIA laid a statement

regarding need to provide broadband connectivity to Post Office,

Suwana in Bhilwara parliamentary constituency, Rajasthan.

(xvi) SHRI MULLAPPALLY RAMACHANDRAN laid a statement

regarding need to provide assistance to Kerala for completing the

seawall along its coastline.

(xvii) SHRI C. MAHENDRAN laid a statement regarding rejuvenation and

replanting of coconut palms in Tamil Nadu.

(xviii) SHRI V. PANNEERSELVAM laid a statement regarding expansion

of Salem Steel Plant in Tamil Nadu.

(xix) SHRI MUTHAMSETTI SRINIVASA RAO laid a statement

regarding need to release funds to Government of Andhra Pradesh for

the Panchayati Raj Department of the State.

(xx) SHRI P. K. BIJU laid a statement regarding need to include Saudi

Arabia among those countries which are exempted from bio-metric

visas. (xxi) SHRI KAUSHALENDRA KUMAR laid a statement regarding

need to grant special category status to Bihar.

(xxii) SHRI BADRUDDIN AJMAL laid a statement regarding need to

review the decision to handover 12 oilfields to private parties in

Assam.

(xxiii) SHRI NABA KUMAR SARNIA laid a statement regarding need to

address the problems faced by people belonging to Kachari

community in Assam to get ST certificate.

LOKPAL AND LOKAYUKTAS (AMENDMENT) BILL, 2016

THE MINISTER OF STATE OF THE MINISTRY OF

DEVELOPMENT OF NORTH EASTERN REGION, MINISTER OF

STATE IN THE PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICE, MINISTER OF STATE IN

THE MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND

PENSIONS, MINISTER OF STATE IN THE DEPARTMENT OF ATOMIC

ENERGY AND MINISTER OF STATE IN THE DEPARTMENT OF SPACE

(DR. JITENDRA SINGH) moving the motion for consideration of the Bill said:

The Lokpal and Lokayuktas Bill, 2013 became an Act from January 2014.

Amendment to the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Bill was brought in the Lok Sabha in

December, 2014. Some of the provisions of this Act have created certain issues. This is the declaration of assets by several persons connected with non-government organizations which receive funding from foreign sources or get direct or indirect funding from the State. I propose an amendment in Parliament today in order to substitute the provision of section 44 which precisely deals with the declaration of assets and the provision of making the assets public. This is not the only amendment but the urgency of bringing an amendment pertaining to Section 44 arises from the fact that this has put a binding on us to stick to the deadline of July

31st for filling your assets, including the assets of the spouses and children and also making them public, and, not only the assets of the public servants but also assets of the NGOs. So, in order to overcome that technicality this amendment is being brought in. Of course, there are other amendments which can be taken up later on.

SHRI MOHAMMAD SALIM: This is an important Bill and is being discussed in entirety in the standing committee. The government is expecting that the report would come in the next session. How did the government arrive at the conclusion that immediately this one section has to be amended. But it seems that the government is attempting to exempt the public servants from its provisions.

Why is the government in a hurry to pass this bill without discussion by keeping the public servants and the members of Parliament out of its purview. SHRI KALYAN BANERJEE: In the Business Advisory Committee meeting we agreed for listing it on Tuesday. But we said we want to have a discussion. But we are not getting opportunity here to discuss it. Only in a very few places there are educational institutions which are doing this charity. It is all right the Bill is being passed without discussion. But for the benefit of the country please do not make any attempt to dilute the Act itself. Simply because an NGO is running a media house and therefore they should be kept beyond the scope of this

Act is something which we are opposing.

SHRI MALLIKARJUN KHARGE: There can be no two opinions that it is very urgent piece of legislation. The government has brought an amendment but the bill should not be diluted. Hence our request from the government is for clarification on this Bill.

DR. JITENDRA SINGH : The Government is not against the Lokpal Bill.

The Government is committed to work against corruption and to implement the

Lokpal as it is approved by the House. The Government is ready to make it even more stringent if that is the recommendation given to us.

The Bill was passed.

BENAMI TRANSACTIONS (PROHIBITION) AMENDMENT BILL, 2015

THE MINISTER OF FINANCE AND MINISTER OF CORPORATE

AFFAIRS (SHRI ARUN JAITLEY) moving the motion for consideration of the

Bill said: Originally the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act was enacted in

1988 and had only nine Sections and any person who wishes to acquire an asset or a property must do it in his own name, with his money. If he acquires it in the name of somebody else, then, it is deemed to be a benami property. Even though two judgements of the Supreme Court came, this law has not been updated and put into effect. Benami transactions are prohibited and the State will have the power to acquire the benami property and that the person who enters into this benami transaction is liable to be prosecuted. When this law was framed, it was thought that everything else would take place by virtue of rules. This Act had to be operationalised through rules, and the rules were never framed. The reason why we want to amend the 1988 Bill because it was considered necessary that the old law be allowed to remain, and the new amendments be inserted into the old law itself. The amendment Bill has 71 Sections because we want the Bill to be operationalised from 1988 onwards. The Standing Committee among others gave a recommendation to lay down as to what are the exceptions to the benami principles. One exception which the law provided for was, properties held within an Undivided Hindu Family. The second amendment was in the event of a Trust, Trustee can hold the property as a fiduciary of the principal Trust. So, those would be exempted. We also considered the issue of properties acquired through power of attorney and that key amendment has been accepted by the Government. The principal object behind this Bill is to discourage benami transactions. It is predominantly an anti-black money measure that any transaction which is benami is illegal and the property is liable to be confiscated. I commend this Bill for discussion and acceptance of the hon. House.

SHRI S.P. MUDDAHANUME GOWDA initiating said: Benami transactions are detrimental to the interest of this nation and benami transactions constitute a serious offence against the State also. So, prohibition is needed and prevention is also required equally. We have been hearing much about Indian

Black Money in foreign countries. But to our surprise, we have got enormous and sufficient black money on our Indian oil itself. The easiest way of keeping the ill- gotten money is to invest it in landed properties. We have been seeing that throughout the country a lot of valuable, prime properties are being purchased by some people in the name of somebody else. In our country, a lot of lands, which are vacant and barren, have been converted into banks of this black money. Black money is invested to keep it safe and to escape from the clutches of law. This law is not only detrimental to the economy of this country but it is also detrimental to the food production of this country. In Karnataka, a non-agriculturist or a company cannot purchase or own agricultural land to prevent black money holders from investing this money in agricultural lands. If the Aadhaar number the PAN and the bank account number is linked it will stop generation of black money.

Definitely people are prepared to come and inform the concerned authorities about benami transactions. But, what is the law the government has enacted in this Bill to protect the interest of the whistle blowers? I would like to know how an offence of serious nature can be treated as a non-cognizable offence. Principles of natural justice require and demand a person should be given some legal assistance. But the government has not mentioned anything about appearance before the adjudicating authority. This authorities and jurisdiction and procedural aspect appear to be too high, too heavy and too lengthy. The Government have provided a provision for this appellate tribunal. The Government have made provision to re- introduce the case here also in the Appellate Tribunal. That means the original jurisdiction still exists before the Appellate Tribunal which is not correct. In the

Appellate Tribunal also, you have not fixed any time limit. The seriousness of the whole issue, the concern of the Government to deal with these cases very stringently, I think that will be taken away the way in which the provision is being made to drag the case for years together. That should not happen. The

Parliamentary Standing Committee has recommended about known source of income. That should not be there. It is only known sources. That should be there. Sources are different from sources of income. 'Known sources' are the right words.

In spite of the recommendation of the Parliamentary Standing Committee, that amendment has not been made. That is why, that should be seriously looked into.

DR. RAMESH POKHRIYAL NISHANK: The Hon. Finance Minister had, in his Budget speech 2015, said that we are going to present a very comprehensive Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Amendment Bill in the House in order to tackle the problem of domestic black-money. Today, by presenting this

Bill in the House, he has not only taken a big stride towards fulfilling that commitment but has also created history in doing so. The Acts related to the issue which had been in force, have proved to be inadequate in provisions to tackle the problem. This Bill very clearly defines benami transaction. It also clearly lays down the parameters for those entities who will be treated as benami holders as also those who will not attract the provisions of this Act. The punishment of 03 years in the previous Act has also been amended and a provision of sentence from

01 to 07 years has been made in the Act. Besides, there is also a provision of penalizing the offender upto 25 per cent of the market value of the property. The amendment Act also seeks to provide powers of civil court to the competent authorities. There is also a provision of appellate court. In conclusion, I am of this opinion that the kind of law matching global standards in respect of transparency and accountability brought by the Government will certainly go a long way in tackling the problem of black-money.

SHRI M. UDHAYAKUMAR: The Bill seeks to amend the Benami

Transaction Act, 1988. The Bill seeks to amend the definition of benami transactions; establish adjudicating authorities and an Appellate Tribunal to deal with benami transactions; and specify the penalty for entering into benami transaction. The Bill also specifies certain cases which will be exempted from the definition of a benami transaction. In the exception to benami transaction as laid down in Section 2(1) of the Principal Act - the expression 'out of known sources of income' should be replaced by 'out of known sources' so as to bring clarity in cases where loan funds which are not income, are used as consideration for purchase of a property and not be kept out of the purview of the Bill. In a federal set-up like

India where land is a State subject, it would be deemed appropriate that the rights of confiscated benami properties vest with State Government instead of the Central

Government. The amendment Bill is likely to have very serious impact in rural areas, where because of large number of cash transactions and poor state of land records, even genuine land owners may find it difficult to establish their titles records being non-traceable. As a precaution, therefore, a thorough and serious inquiry by the Initiating Officer becomes essential before the matter goes to the

Adjudicating Authority. The time taken for such inquiry should, therefore, be extended from the proposed period of thirty days to thirty months. Time limit for disposing of the appeal by an Appellate Tribunal say within 2 years from the date of filling of the appeal, should be fixed in the Bill. The provisions are also silent on the role of whistle-blowers and their protection, which would be important to detect benami holdings. Adequate provisions in this regard should be incorporated in the Bill. In the proposed Bill, the appointment of the Adjudicating Authority has been prescribed in clause 9; however, no such mechanism has been provided for appointment of the Initiating Officer and the Approving Authority. The proposed Bill may therefore be restructured by inserting a Chapter on Authorities on the lines of Income Tax Act so as to have greater clarity and avoid legal hassles.

Stress should be laid on digitalization of land record and its regular updation.

Efforts should be made to deal with the problem systematically to the extent possible without needless discretionary intrusions. There should be complete co- ordination and intelligence sharing between different agencies. This aspect should be adequately reflected in the Bill. The need of the hour is to exercise the existing powers judiciously and in a credible manner. The Finance Minister in his Budget

Speech 2015 had stated the purpose of the Bill was to curb the generation of domestic black money. However, the Standing Committee found that the

Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Bill was silent over that significant aspect. The intent of the Government should therefore be clearly mentioned in the

Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Bill.

SHRI KALYAN BANERJEE: The Bill which has come up is the Benami

Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Bill, 2015. The Government could bring a new Bill. The Standing Committee of Finance in Part-II of its 28th Report had recommended for bringing a new Bill. There will be problem in appointing the

Chairman of the Adjudicating Authority because the Bill says that the senior most member will be the chairman and seniority of officers belonging to different cadres cannot be compared. I fail to find a point in including Department of Revenue everywhere. The Bill proposes to create an appellate tribunal but I would like to ask where the provision for preferring an appeal is. If an order is passed by the

Adjudicating Authority, power should be given to the Appellate Tribunal to pass an interlocutory order. It should be ensured that a person gets justice. In rural areas and in case of illiterate persons it is very difficult to find the land deeds etc.

In their cases if the deeds are not available, then care should be taken to see that those properties are not brought within the scope and ambit of this Act. If the property is not bought by tainted money, or money from undisclosed sources, then those properties should not be brought within the scope and ambit of this Act.

Except certain points which I have already pointed out, I appreciate the mechanisms that has been created through this Bill. SHRI LADU KISHORE SWAIN: This Bill has been brought to curb the nuisance of illegal transactions that have been plaguing our country. Most of the black money generated domestically is due to real estate transactions. This Bill does not take into account such different cultural compulsions existing in different parts of the country. This Bill has the provision to seize benami property and hand it over to the Central Government. This is against the core spirit of federalism since land is a State subject. I would like a clarification from the Minister on whether passing this Bill would lead to conflict with the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Black money from abroad should be brought back to stop benami transactions domestically. Savings of the poor and sundry should not be taken away by shrewd and fraudulent persons. My party feels that this is an incomplete and haphazard

Bill which needs to be relooked even though the Standing Committee has already scrutinized it.

DR. RAVINDRA BABU: This Act has been in vogue since 1988 but has it been able to hook any of the benami transactions? Income Declaration Scheme has been launched this year. This Bill contradicts that Declaration Scheme. This Bill is talking about benami property which includes movable, immovable, tangible and intangible. How will the Income Tax Officers have control over the black money which is going out of the country through hawala? Income Tax Department alone cannot deal with this. There may be so many Acts to deal with such actions, like hawala, etc. Customs and Excise Department should also have been integrated so that the black money menace is tackled. The people who are embezzling the money are actually traitors of the country. This Bill is a well intended Bill but I feel that this should be integrated with the hawala, customs, drugs, etc.

SHRI SANKAR PRASAD DATTA: We want that benami transactions in the case of property should be totally stopped in our country. We think some loopholes are still there in the Act. Establishing adjudicating authorities and appellate tribunals to deal with benami transactions and specifying the penalties for entering into benami transactions are good intensions. Had the loopholes in the

Income Tax Act, 1961 been plugged, we would not need a new Bill. Sometimes, an individual can purchase land for the sake of the family and he may sincerely, honestly gift it to other persons. In that case, what would happen has not been described in the amendments. This loophole should be plugged. It is stated in the

Bill that the confiscated properties will be vested with the Central Government.

That should go to the concerned State Government. For initiating and completion of the cases, there should be a fixed time limit. For furnishing information about land, only 30 days time has been given. I think this can be extended. It should be integrated with Aadhaar or PAN card. Benami transactions are taking place only to create black money, to keep the black money, for political purposes and also for creating election fund of political parties. If the political parties and political leaders keep away from benami transactions and not use black money for political purposes, then only benami transactions can be stopped in this country. We hope that this Bill becomes a very strong law.

SHRI KONDA VISHWESHWAR REDDY: This Bill proposes comprehensive changes in the Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act, 1988. It expands the definition of benami transactions, establishes an Adjudicating

Authority and an Appellate Tribunal. It also increases the penalty for those indulging in benami transactions. We welcome this Bill. Why the benami transactions are so prevalent? I think, it is obvious that one has to hide wealth earned from undisclosed sources. There is a big difference between the actual value and the Government official prices. We do not have good identification and valuation of properties and entities. So, by this Act alone, however well it is implemented, I do not think, we can eliminate benami transactions. We need a gamut of reforms and we need those that will eliminate these factors that will aid and facilitate benami transactions. I am glad the Finance Minister and the

Government has taken into cognizance and the Government is simultaneously taking a series of systematic steps and reforms. We have to distinguish these benami transactions as predicate offences and benami transactions as primary crimes. I have submitted an amendment to this Bill. In benami transactions, where it is predicate offence, the land should go to the Central Government. Benami transactions where the State Government land was illegally allocated to somebody, to favour somebody, then it should go back to the State Government. If it is an income tax evasion and the benami transaction is caught, then it will go to the

Central Government. If it is corruption at the Central Government, then, I think the land in the benami transaction should go back to the Central Government. We also need to take cognizance of the Standing Committee Report saying that the investigation by the initiating officer should be completed within a specific time frame. It is better if time frame is mentioned. Information technology has some problem when applied to detecting benami transactions. Land identification, land valuation and location codes should be there for this purpose. Standardization of information relating to land deeds is required.

SHRI Y V SUBBA REDDY: I welcome this Bill. The Bill, in short, has three main areas. One is the definition of ‘benami transactions’, the second one is setting up of Appellate Tribunal and other adjudicating authorities and the third one deals with penal provisions. In spite of having so many legislations, people with malign intention are finding loopholes and elbowroom in circumventing laws through unfair practices. Under income declaration scheme, if a person declares his benami properties, will he get immunity under this Bill? It is a big question. I request the hon. Minister to bring an official amendment in genuine transactions even in case of non-HUF families where name of elder member of the family, who has partly or fully paid for the property, does not occur as joint owner.

SHRI PRAHLAD SINGH PATEL: If black money and benami property is not wiped out, honest and middle class person cannot indulge into election politics. That is why I congratulate the Government. Political parties do not want to touch these things. The Congress Party might have brought this Act originally, but it did not utilize it. This is the biggest example of political will. Such a law is the yardstick of change that is brought about through a change in government. Such decisions shake up governments as the persons having property are not ordinary persons. ‘Aadhaar Numbers’ should be linked with registry so that if I have ten properties, this number will reflect all my ten properties and the remaining benami properties will be exposed one day or the other. I feel that three things are a must in this regard, such as linking of Aadhaar Number with registry will be an effective way to reveal the benami property. The second measure is to make it mandatory to declare properties while filing Income Tax. There is no mention in this Bill about the properties of the Mutt and the temples. Will the trust operating for thousands of years in which the name of any person has not been mentioned, get protection? I feel that it should be kept into view. I support this Bill congratulating the

Government. It will be a history before the coming generation that the thing initiated in the year 1882 has finally been settled in the year 2016. SHRI N K PREMACHANDRAN: I support this Bill with certain reservations. Major recommendations of the Standing Committee have not been taken into consideration. They would have improved the Bill. This is my first observation. Black money is a menace to the Indian economy and benami deals are one of the major reasons for the proliferation of black money in a big way. So, if we want to restrict and prohibit the generation of black money, definitely, the benami transactions should be dealt with in a very strict manner. The original Bill

Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act has passed in 1988. Even after 27 years, no rules have been framed under this Act. It shows that the Governments were not sincere in the operationalisation of the benami law. Therefore, I congratulate the hon. Finance Minister at least this time this Bill has come before the House for consideration. And we are going to pass this Bill also. A very good mechanism is put in place and a well-established procedure is also there. But there are some clarifications which I would like to seek. The first clarification is regarding the application of code of civil procedure. Section 11 and Section 19 are totally contradictory. The Adjudicating Authority shall not be bound by the Code of Civil

Procedure as per Section 11 of the proposed amendment Bill. Section 19 is totally reverse to this Section. It says that the Authority shall for the purpose of this Act have the same powers as are vested in a civil court under the Code of Civil

Procedure 1908 while trying a suit. Therefore, the Adjudicating Authority, Administrator etc. are having all these powers. So, the Adjudicating Authority and authorities under the Act are not bound by the CPC as far as the procedure is concerned. But as far as the powers are concerned, we are entitled to all the powers. Similarly, the same situation is there in regard to section 40 Clause 1 and

Clause 2. As per Clause 1 of Section 40, the Appellate Tribunal shall not be bound by the procedure laid down by the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 but shall be guided by the principles of natural justice. Clause 2 of Section 40 says that the

Appellate Tribunal shall, for the purpose of discharging its functions under this

Act, have the same powers as were vested in a civil court under the Code of Civil

Procedure 1908. Therefore, they are not bound by the procedure which is being laid. The second clarification is regarding the appeal before the High Court. That is under clause 49(3), (4), and (5). It says that if the High Court is satisfied that a substantial question of law is involved in that case it shall formulate that question.

I think, for the first time in the history of Indian legislation we are restricting the powers of the High Court. That question only will be argued and decided. The

High Court is having inherent powers and discretionary powers. How can we restrict the High Court that it should adjudicate only on the question of law? It is an admitted fact that the High Court will entertain an appeal only if there is a question of law. Another clarification which I would like to seek is regarding section 58. An exemption is given here again to the definition of benami transaction. What is a benami transaction? Almost all the benami transactions are in the name of religious and charitable trusts. The fourth point on which I would like to seek clarification is Section 59. The power of the Central Government to issue instructions, directions and orders to the Authority is very interesting. What are the areas where the directions are given? Is a judicious mind applied in this provision? Provision made under Section 59(3) is a very strange provision. The

Adjudicating Authority should be independent. Why should the Central

Government issue direction and instruction? I am only seeking clarification on

Section 59 Operationalisation of this Act definitely depends on the political will of the Government to curb benami transactions and black money.

DR. UDIT RAJ: The Government will have to increase the staff strength in the income tax department to properly implement this Act because they are under staffed presently. It will be easy to curb benami transactions through digitization because it would lead to trace such transactions. The deadline for declaring undisclosed income is 30th September. This will help in registering benami transactions in the name of real owner. Moreover, people have to pay tax at the rate of 45 percent on such income, this would significantly increase the revenue of the government. But this has to be taken care of that the immunity which is being given should not be violated because there are apprehensions in the minds of the people that the income tax department might reopen their cases in future. The hon. Finance Minister should pay attention to this fact also. Once this Act is operationalised, it would definitely increase revenue to the exchequer of the

Government.

SHRI JAI PRAKASH NARAYAN YADAV: This Bill introduced by the hon. Finance Minister will definitely put curb on benami transactions to some extent but we need a comprehensive bill to prevent the inflow and outflow of black money and we need to bring back the black money stashed abroad and for this stringent provisions should be made in the Bill. Big businessmen invest black money in real estate ingeniously. Black money is also invested in the film industry. There should be a limit as to how much property one should have. A very few people have lots of property while a major chunk of population is dying due to starvation. People are investing black money in purchasing large tracks of land because they know that after 20 years they will get 50 fold returns from it.

Thus people invest their black money in an ingenious way. I, therefore request the hon. Minister to kindly pay attention to these aspects also.

SHRI VINAYAK BHAURAO RAUT: I would like to congratulate hon.

Prime Minister and Finance Minister for bringing in an amendment after a lapse of

28 years. This is really a very important bill brought in before the Lok Sabha.

Today corruption is the commonly used word in our country. People are resorting to corruption to get their work done and they have completely sidelined the right course. People are giving bribes because they avoid paying so many taxes levied under our taxation system. And moreover, it has become very difficult to earn money honestly and earn a livelihood easily nowadays. Most of the black money generated in this country is being invested in the real estate. Black money invested in this sector is not disclosed before the government authorities. People are of the opinion that if they have to pay 55 per cent tax on their hard earned money to the government then why be honest. So, there is a need to bring comprehensive change in the taxation system. Protection should be provided to those people who are honest. The Hindu undivided Family has been well defined in this Bill and it will provide relief to the common people. Again there is a need to curb the tendency of threatening the common people by the income tax officials.

Restrictions should be imposed on generation of black money through this Bill and protection must be provided to those who are honest.

KUMARI SUSHMITA DEV: This Bill had been brought earlier by the

UPA Government. But because it lapsed, it has to be reintroduced today both in

Rajya Sabha and in Lok Sabha. Today the question arises as to why are we supporting this Bill. The earlier 1988 Act had a blanket prohibition that this is a

'benami transaction' defined hereunder, and this cannot be allowed, and this is banned. But there was no detailed legislation. We did not know who is going to investigate? Who is going to go after a benami transaction? So, I appreciate the move of the Government. Now, we have proper authorities, proper investigating officers in initiating investigations, the approving authority, an administrator and the adjudicating authority. Few issues that I feel have created some confusion in my mind is that in Section 53(1) which says that any person who is in violation of provisions of this law, shall be prosecuted with rigorous punishment, etc. When you say any persons, the question that arises is who is that person. I hope the hon.

Finance Minister would elaborate on that. Secondly, and most significantly, where this Government is consistently talked about cooperative federalism, I do not somehow understand why one the property is confiscated, why should it vest in the

Central Government and not in the respective State Governments where those properties are today situated?

SHRI PREM SINGH CHANDUMAJRA: The Benami Transaction

(Prohibition) Act was enacted in 1988 to curb the tendency of benami transactions across the country. But it is also true that this objective of the government was not fulfilled because there were various shortcoming in it. Now, after removing these shortcomings this Bill has been brought. As per the Economic Survey, many economists are of the opinion that 70 per cent wealth of the country is concentrated in the hands of only 10-15 per cent people and in the last 70 years rich have become richer and poor more poorer. The main reason behind this fact is that black money generated in this country have been stashed in certain other countries and benami properties were purchased here. I feel that after the passage of this Bill this trend is going to end in this country and disparity between poor and rich will also come to end. I would like certain clarifications from the government. There is a need to bring certain amendments in Income Tax Act also. There are certain people in the society who wish to transfer their property to their relatives and what is the provision in those cases. Another point is that in our country various land are owned by Gods and few lands of Gurudwara Sahib are owned by Guru Granth

Sahib also. In this regard clarifications must be given in this Bill so that there is no confusion left. I feel that comprehensive clarification should be given in this Bill.

SHRI KAUSHALENDRA KUMAR: In our country it has become a common trend to buy properties, make transactions, dabble in shares, purchase vehicle through benami transactions. In some of the cases, property is immediately transferred by a person in the name of any member of his family. It is only to hoodwink the government. I would like to compliment the government that it has endeavour for making this Bill more stringent by bringing in comprehensive amendments in the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988. Most of the black money is invested in the real estate sector. I would like to bring to the cognizance of the government that there is a provision in this Bill that right to confiscate any type of property will vest with the Central Government whereas land and property are state subjects. So, there is a need to rope in the State Governments in this whole process. No time limit has been provided regarding filing of appeal by any person in appellate tribunals. There should be atleast three months window for approaching the High Court in this regard. I do not feel that mere by making provisions for six months jail and 25 per cent penalty will make this Act stringent. Government should have absolute rights over confiscated property. Inquiry should also be made with regard to the high officials and the subordinate staff who have attained superannuation.

SHRI C. N. JAYADEVAN: The Benami Transactions (Prohibition)

Amendment Bill, 2015 has been brought by making comprehensive amendments to the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 and to deal with benami transactions effectively. We know that many of the politicians and bureaucrats in the country are amassing property worth more than their legal income in benami names. I think, this Bill will help to check this menace to a great extent if implemented properly. The Committee had also noted that benami transactions could be pre-empted and eliminated by digitalization of land records. The

Committee stated that since land is a State subject under the Constitution, rights over confiscated properties should vest with the State Governments instead of the

Central Government. So, I would like to know what is the Government's reaction to these issues. SHRI C.K. SANGMA: The first point that I would like to say is that unless and until there is proper coordination between the Centre and the State, it will be difficult for this Act to be actually implemented at the grass root level. Second, we are a Sixth Schedule area. Being a Sixth Schedule area, the land belongs to the clan; the land belongs to the headman. The land does not belong to any individual.

In this particular Act, there is no provision to allow the clan to be exempted from this law. I think in North East, most of the tribals are exempted from income tax.

It is a wonderful scenario for anybody who wants to do benami. Therefore, these kinds of situations need to be considered when we pass this Bill. Another important issue is that we have porous borders with Bangladesh. A lot of counterfeit money is coming in. All I am saying is that the Central Government must respect the sentiments of the tribal people and, at the same time, ensure that the Act is implemented in true spirit. The last point which I would like to mention is that the Government must make some provisions to ensure that the powers are not misutilized under this Act.

DR. BOORA NARSAIAH GOUD: The Bill, which is lying dormant for 27 years, has been brought today for the introduction and also to pass. This shows the will of the Government. I would like to stress only on two or three points. This

Bill has been brought to eradicate benami transactions. But here everybody has mentioned about property only whereas there are many assets a person can create through benami transactions. Secondly, in any case, executor and judge cannot be the same person. Similarly, in the matter of benami transactions one can appeal from appellate tribunal to High Court and Supreme Court also. Sometimes, it takes a long period of 30 to 40 years to dispose of the cases. It is my request that there should be a time limit. There should be provision of providing incentives in this Bill if a property worth 100 crore rupees is revealed then it would be better to provide 10 to 20 per cent incentives in this case. Apart from this Geo tagging should also be completed. At last, I would like to say that honest should be protected and those who are guilty must be punished.

PROF. SAUGATA ROY: All that I wanted to say that as a Member of the

Standing Committee on Finance, we had eight meetings on the Benami

Transactions Bill and we gave a unanimous report in which we said that fresh law should be brought. I want to ask the hon. Minister that why is it that you chose to over-ride the unanimous recommendation of the Finance Committee and go ahead with the Bill. The intention of the Minister to eradicate black money is good. But by bringing this Act, he is opening the path to hell because in the Statement of

Objects and Reasons of the Bill does not state that the purpose is to eradicate black money. This Act has a provision for confiscation under 27(1) and it is vested in the Central Government whereas it should have been vested in the State

Government which allocated land. Lastly, I think this will open a serious problem in rural areas where there are no proper land records and there are cash transactions. Moreover, the existing Income Tax Act has adequate provisions and teeth to deal with issues such as tax evasion and unaccounted income. Therefore, he should take back the Bill today and go for a new Bill.

THE MINISTER OF FINANCE AND MINISTER OF CORPORATE

AFFAIRS (SHRI ARUN JAITLEY) replying said: Several members have laid stress on a point that acting on the recommendations of the Standing Committee, a fresh Bill should have been brought instead of bringing an amendment to the original Act of 1988. So, if we had accepted the recommendation of the Standing

Committee - repealed the 1988 Act and recreated a new law in 2016- that would have been granting immunity to all people who acquired properties benami between 1988 and 2016. Obviously, the acquisition cannot take place, but the penal provisions of the 1988 Act also would have stood repealed. When a new Act with similar provision would have come, it could only apply for a penal provision to properties which are benami entered into after 2016. This move would not have been in larger public interest, particularly if large amounts of unaccounted and black money has been used to transact those transactions. Therefore, prima facie the argument looks attractive that 'there is a 9-section law and you are inserting 71 sections into it. As far as penalizing the guilty people is concerned, the required machinery is being made operative under the present amendment for punitive action. Moreover, whistleblowers need not get any protection under this Bill because we have a specific law for them which across laws applies to all whistleblowers. When a whistleblowers gives any information, he gets protection under the Whistleblowers Act. As far as making benami transaction a non- cognizable offence is concerned, it has been made non-cognizable because we do not want multiple agencies to come and harass the people. The object is not to harass them, but the object is that there must be prosecution if he has violated a particular law. Furthermore, if you see the list of amendments which the

Government has circulated, amendment Nos. 3, 4 and 5, I have proposed to the hon. House that the phrase of 'income' in all the three sections wherever it is mentioned, in accordance with the recommendations of the Standing Committee, should be deleted, and the word in the amended section would be 'known sources' and not 'known sources of income'. Besides, your suggestions regarding the right of representation through an authorized representative here also been incorporated in the Bill. You then raised this whole issue of why we have these four stages, that is, initiating officer, the acting officer, the adjudicating officer etc. We have adopted these stages to check the misuse of power by any individual and to reduce the possibility of error. One important question which has been raised by several

Members is, as to why should the property vest in the Central Government, why not in the State Government? Under all central legislations where vesting of property takes place, it vests in the Central Government. At least, I am not aware of any law which is a central law under which vesting or acquisition takes place but the property rights then go to some other authority. A legitimate point has been raised that the appellate authority has not been given a specific power of staying the order. I would like to say in this regard that when an appellate authority has a power to pass a final order the power of interim suspension of the order which is inherent in that power of appeal, irrespective of whether it is specifically mentioned or not. So far as the issuing direction by the Central

Government is concerned, Section 59(3) clearly says that no order, instruction or direction under sub-section I shall be issued which require the authority to decide a particular case in a particular manner. This law is not in conflict with the Income

Tax Act in any way. The Income Tax Act deals with various provisions of taxation, the powers to levy, the procedures etc. This particular law deals with any benami property which is acquired by a person in somebody else's name to be vested in the Central Government. So, the two Acts are supplementary to each other as far as this Act is concerned. The Section 58 clearly provides that the

Government has the right to exempt the properties registered in the name of religious deities and religious organizations. A question has been raised that under

Section 53 who would be liable? Is it the person who acquires the property or the person who sells the property? In this regard the language is very clear; whoever enters into benami transaction, and obviously both these people have entered into a benami transaction itself. The last question was with regard to properties in several Schedule areas which are covered by the Fifth Schedule itself. This Act does not exempt those properties. But that exemption would be available in the

Article 244 of the Constitution. The Fifth Schedule, Clause 5 clearly says that wherever those scheduled properties are, the Governor of that State has the power to exempt the operation of any Central legislation to those areas.

The Bill, as amended, was passed.

ANOOP MISHRA Secretary General

© 2016 BY LOK SABHA SECRETARIAT NOTE: It is the verbatim Debates of the Lok Sabha and not the Synopsis that should be considered authoritative.

English and Hindi versions of Synopsis of Debates are also available at http://loksabha.nic.in.