Cobrapost (New Delhi): Analysis of documents pertaining to the investigation into the business operations of the Kamla Pasand Group has revealed that eight family members of the group promoters/owners together slipped in over Rs. 2547.49 crore of unaccounted cash into their bank accounts. This was done on the pretext of sale of diamonds. The unaccounted cash, according to government agencies, was generated from the unaccounted sale of its products. The cash thus generated was moved into the regular banking channels through proxies – individuals and corporate entities. Navneet Chaurasia, Shashi Kant Chaurasia, Vijay Anand Chaurasia, Vibha Arya Chaurasia, Mayank Chaurasia, Dipti Chaurasia, Anand Kumar Chaurasia, and Rajiv Chaurasia, all family members of the promoters/owners of the Kamla Pasand Group. Interestingly, the unaccounted cash was slipped into the banking channels after declaring of possession of diamonds under the Income Declaration Scheme 2016 (IDS 2016). The declaration of diamonds was a cover to camouflage all the transactions and buy immunity under the scheme.

If the findings of the Special Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department and its Benami Prohibition Unit-I are to be believed, the Chaurasias laundered as much money. The purported sale of diamonds was used as a ruse to cover the tracks. Proxies – individuals and corporate entities – were used for the express purpose. The government agencies, which investigated the group in the recent past, identified the proxies as benamidar. The cash was moved around through hawala operators called angadiyas. These questionable transactions took place between FY 2016–17 and FY 2020–21.

After declaring the possession of rough diamonds under the IDS 2016, the Chaurasias went on to claim long-term capital gain (LTCG) in their statutory filings on the income generated from the sale proceeds on a year-on-year basis until 2020–21. The agencies concluded that the diamonds never existed and that the sale proceeds against which LTCG was claimed were bogus.

But this conclusion did not find favour with the SAFEMA Appellate Tribunal when the Chaurasias challenged the PBPTA Adjudicating Authority orders.

Cobrapost is in possession of three orders passed by the Adjudicating Authority, under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act (PBPT Act), 1988, the Union Ministry of Finance. In these orders passed on the same day of June 28, 2023, the PBPTA Adjudicating Authority implicated Navneet, Shashi Kant Chaurasia, their front man Yogendra Raj Uttam Raj, Shinghvi, and nine corporate entities managed by him on behalf of the Chaurasias. The brother duo allegedly routed unaccounted money worth Rs. 297 crore and Rs. 358.95 crore, respectively, between FY 2016–17 and FY 2020–21. But before that, they declared possession of rough diamonds worth more than Rs. 48.85 crore and Rs. 49.42 crore, respectively. These diamonds were purportedly cut and polished, substantially enhancing their weight in carats and thus market value. The diamonds then were sold, fetching them proceeds worth more than Rs. 364.91 crore and Rs. 358.95 crore, respectively.

These transactions were declared under IDS 2016, an amnesty scheme under which the Union government had called for the tax-paying citizenry to disclose all their undeclared incomes and assets acquired in the past without any punitive action. Navneet and Shashi Kant claimed an LTCG totalling Rs. 297 crore and Rs. 295.86 crore, respectively, against the diamond sale proceeds during this period under the scheme.

However, this elaborate schematic of the Chaurasias came asunder after the Special Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department, Delhi, conducted a search-and-seizure operation at various premises of the group, its promoters/owners, and their family members in January 2020. The team also raided the residence of Singhvi. The orders were the conclusion of the proceedings following a reference by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, the Initiating Officer of the Benami Prohibition Unit-I, New Delhi. This reference followed the 2020 search-and-seizure operation by the Income Tax Department.

These raids led to discoveries which are revealing. Singhvi, for instance, turned out be a conduit for routing thousands of crores in unaccounted cash into the banking channels, so did nine entities which he managed and controlled on behalf of the Chaurasias. These entities are Bhairav Gems Pvt. Ltd., Garima Exports, Gurudev Corporation, Yogi Diam, Khushboo Diamonds Pvt. Ltd., Manmohan Exports Pvt. Ltd., Chintamani Exports, Shrenik Diamond Pvt. Ltd., and Uttam Gems Pvt. Ltd. Singhvi and all these corporate entities were identified as benamidars (proxy owners). The Chaurasias mentioned in the orders moved their unaccounted cash first to Singhvi through angadiyas (hawala operators) which was slipped into the banking channels in the name of diamond sale proceeds received from the benamidar entities. The Chaurasias paid Singhvi a commission of 0.18 percent for providing accommodation entries against cash receipts.

One of the most interesting findings of the investigation that followed was that contrary to their claim, the Chaurasias never possessed diamonds. Not even a single carat. During the course of investigation by the income tax officials, the Chaurasias claimed they inherited the diamonds as family heirloom. But Kamla Kant Chaurasia contradicted such claims. The family patriarch categorically stated before the assessment officer, heading the investigation, that neither had he received any diamonds from his father nor had he ever passed them to any of his family members.

The diamonds against which the long-term capital gain was claimed by them were bogus, so was the sale proceeds. It was simply a ruse to launder the cash that was generated through unaccounted sale of products. After the laundered monies found a modicum of legitimacy through banking channels, two of these family members, Navneet and Shashi Kant Chaurasia, made huge investments in various instruments, including properties, shares and securities, and partnership firms. The PBPTA Adjudicating Authority, after rejecting the claims of Navneet and Shashi Kant Chaurasia, attached the assets worth, respectively, Rs. 364.91 crore and Rs. 358.95 crore they acquired. These assets – both movable and immovable – were identified as benami and thus deemed fit for attachment.

There is a twist to the tale, however.

The Appellate Tribunal under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators Act (SAFEMA) of 1976 overturned PBPTA Adjudicating Authority ruling after the Chaurasias challenged them orders (Annexure 4). The SAFEMA Appellate Tribunal set aside the Adjudicating Authority orders on January 14, 2025, vacating the asset attachment. Interestingly, instead of challenging the overturn in the Delhi High Court, the Initiating Officer of the Benami Prohibition Unit filed a review petition with the tribunal only to be dismissed (Annexure 5). Though more than four months have lapsed after the tribunal passed its final order on February 9, 2026, the Benami Prohibition Unit has failed to seek judicial remedy so far. However, the case is yet to be over as proceedings against the Chaurasias before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is ongoing.

Based on the analysis of the orders, the findings of the PBPTA Adjudicating Authority can be summed up as follows:

1. Eight family members of the promoters/owners of the Kamla Pasand Group laundered monies to the tune of Rs. 2547.49 crore that was generated through unaccounted sale of products.
2. These members of the Chaurasia clan did this by claiming they possessed rough diamonds which were cut and polished to be sold.
3. The declaration of the possession of diamonds was made the year when the amnesty scheme IDS 2016 was operational to avoid scrutiny and avail themselves of immunity from any potential penal action.
4. After making declaration under the amnesty scheme, the Chaurasias claimed long-term capital gain against the sale proceeds from diamonds between 2016–17 and 2020–21.
5. However, the diamonds never existed and the bogus sale proceeds was just a ruse to launder unaccounted cash and convert it into a legitimate income.
6. Singhvi and the nine corporate entities were used as conduits to slip the unaccounted cash into the banking channels.
7. The investigation also revealed that the Chaurasias moved the unaccounted cash through hawala operators called angadiyas.
8. Singhvi and one of his associates were paid 0.18 percent commission for providing accommodation entry in the books of the corporate entities against the receipt of the bogus sale proceeds.
9. After the unaccounted cash found its way into their bank accounts, they declared long-term capital gain against the bogus diamond sale proceeds.
10. Navneet Chaurasia and his brother Shashi Kant claimed LTCG, respectively, of Rs. 297 crore and Rs. 295.86 crore in their returns for the Assessment Year 2017–18 through 2021–22. They paid income tax accordingly.
11. Both Navneet and Shashi Kant made contradictory statements with regard to the origin of diamonds, even claiming that they had inherited them. Their claim was trashed by none other than Kamla Kant, the family patriarch.
12. Navneet and Shashi Kant made huge investments running into hundreds of crores of rupees during this period. These included investments in properties, valuables, shares and securities, and investment firms.
13. The firms that received the investments from brother duo had sprung into existence around IDS 2016.
14. Kamla Pasand Group was also found to have been involved in large-scale tax evasion, on account of out-of-the-book sale, reflecting in the manner in which the unaccounted cash was slipped into the banking channels.
15. Both movable and immovable assets that brother duo Navneet and Shashi Kant had acquired through such means were attached by the PBPTA Adjudicating Authority.
16. These orders fell apart when the Chaurasias challenged them in the SAFEMA Appellate Tribunal which set aside the case absolving them of holding any benami property.
17. Strangely, the authorities have failed to challenge the overturn by the tribunal in the high court.
18. The case is not over though, as parallel proceedings before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal are going on

Before we delve in detail into how the Income Tax Department found the Chaurasias moved Rs. 2547.49 crore of unaccounted cash into banking channels, leading to the benami proceedings, it will be in order to throw some light on the group and its business operations.

The group's journey began way back in 1973 with a road-side kiosk in Pheelkhana, Kanpur, in Uttar Pradesh where Kamla Kant Chaurasia, the family patriarch, sold betel nut, tobacco, and other associated chewing consumables. Kamla Kant began experimenting and selling a mix of chopped betel nut, catechu, and fragrance which came to be known as pan masala. Even as chewing pan masala became an obsession with an upstart generation of the time, with celebrities selling the idea on billboards across the country and on those ad clips before the screening of a movie, the enterprise got a firm footing after a manufacturing plant was set up in Kanpur. There was no looking back thereafter as the enterprise graduated into a well-oiled business empire in the coming four decades. With its worth now pegged at Rs. 3000 crore, the group's operations span across Kanpur, Delhi, Kolkata, and Mumbai.

Named after the family patriarch, the Kamla Pasand Group, is currently managed by Kamal Kishore Chaurasia with primary business involving manufacturing of pan masala (a mixture of processed betel nut, catechu, fragrance, and other ingredients), gutkha (a tobacco-based chewing product), and chewing tobacco, among others. The group owns celebrated brands Kamla Pasand Gutkha, Kamla Pasand Gold Dust, Kamla Pasand Blue Sapphire, and Rajshree Pan Masala all registered under Trademark Act of 1999, through Kamla Kant & Co. LLP. These periods became the vehicle for the group's pan-India growth and presence.

The Kamla Pasand Group runs its business operations – manufacturing and selling various products under its brands – through several corporate entities. These entities work under a franchise arrangement and charge a fixed commission against their sale proceeds. The details of some of these entities are as follows:

But the Kamla Pasand Group's growth trajectory is not what the group has been projecting for public consumption. The real growth figure is never made public as a bulk of its business remains unaccounted for. Precisely for this reason has the group been under the radar of tax authorities both at the state and at the central levels. Its premises and those of its owners have seen search and seizure operations from time to time.

The Adjudicating Authority, constituted under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act (PBPT Act) of 1988, passed three orders implicating Navneet Chaurasia, his brother Shashi Kant Chaurasia, their point man Singhvi, and nine corporate entities controlled and managed by Singhvi (see for details Annexure 1, Annexure 2, and Annexure 3). They were indicted for slipping unaccounted cash into the banking system running into hundreds of crores of rupees. They claimed it to be the sale proceeds from diamonds. The orders passed on June 28, 2023 were the culmination of a year-long proceedings held by the PBPTA Adjudicating Authority following a reference by the Initiating Officer of the Benami Prohibition Unit-I, New Delhi, functioning under the Ministry of Finance. This reference followed a search and seizure operation conducted by the Special Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department, Central Circle, which functions under the Central Board of Direct Taxes, on various premises of the Kamla Pasand Group and the residence of Singhvi. During the course of the operation, the investigation officer found incriminating evidence in the form of documents and digital data showing the Chaurasia family members had been bringing into their books undisclosed income since FY 2016–17.

In other words, they slipped in unaccounted cash into the banking system to make it legitimate.

This they did by claiming they owned rough diamonds which were cut and polished, adding more carats to them, and sold. They declared the possession of rough diamonds in Assessment Year (AY) 2017–18 and claimed LTCG on the sale proceeds received from them. They did so one year after another assessment year until 2021–22.

However, there are many twists and turns in the tale.

Diamonds Were Never There

The assessment officer of the Income Tax Department heading the search and seizure operation and the subsequent investigation found the diamonds against which LTCG had been claimed never existed. This fact emerged after none of the family members integral to the transactions involving the claimed sale of diamonds furnished any cogent evidence showing they actually possessed the diamonds during the search operation conducted on the premises of the Kamla Pasand Group or during the benami proceedings.

Then, there were contradictions as to the origin of the diamonds. In their written statements, Mayank Chaurasia, Vijay Anand Chaurasia, and Anand Kumar Chaurasia claimed they had acquired the rough diamonds "from their parents as ancestral property". Rajiv Chaurasia, another member of the family involved in the transactions, however, stated that it was Shashi Kant Chaurasia who had bought the rough diamonds.

What the agencies treated as decisive was the statement Kamla Kant made before the investigating officials. The family patriarch categorically stated that neither his father had passed any jewellery or gem stones to him nor had he passed any diamonds to his sons.

Another interesting fact that emerged during the investigation and the benami proceedings that all the members of the Chaurasia family had claimed long-term capital gain on the proceeds from the bogus sale of diamonds and had paid 20 percent tax. This raises a question: if the so-called diamonds were inherited, then why pay tax on long-term capital gain instead of inheritance tax which is a paltry 1 percent? There was no need for them to declare these assets under IDS 2016 if the diamonds existed and were inherited. The intent behind this duplicity was obvious: to screen these shady transactions from any potential scrutiny.

Further, during the post-search investigation, proceedings before the central AO or the benami proceedings, none of the parties integral to the transactions involved in alleged sale of diamonds did not comply with the summons. Obviously, they did not believe their personal deposition was in order let alone putting evidence on record that could establish their claims beyond any iota of doubt. Were they afraid their deposition could unmask the real nature of the transactions?

In fact, using the non-existent diamonds and the bogus sale proceeds from them as a ruse, eight members of the Chaurasia clan slipped in an unaccounted sum of Rs. 25,47,49,69,995 (or Rs. 2547.49 crore rounded off) into the banking system to make it legitimate as mentioned earlier in the story. The Benami Prohibition Unit-I treated all these transactions as Benami and these members of the Chaurasia clan as beneficial owners. The details of the transactions and the LTCG claimed over the bogus sale proceeds against non-existent diamonds are provided here:

As it can be gleaned from the table, each of the Chaurasias reaped a windfall gain ranging from 212 percent to 957 percent. The probe found the alleged diamonds were sold at usually inflated rates, hence the windfall gain. The rate at which the benamidar entities purchased the alleged diamonds from other parties ranged from Rs. 30,000 to Rs. 70,000 per carat, a realistic rate. But the same entities purchased the diamonds from the Chaurasias at an unimaginably higher rate. "The difference in rates is so glaring that as against the purchase rate from other parties being in the range of Rs. 30000 – 70000 per carat (which is a realistic rate), the purchases rate from Chaurasia family members is in range of Rs. 9 lakhs to 15 lakhs per carat in most of the cases, which is unimaginable," the PBPTA Adjudicating Authority order observed.

The investigation officer also identified Yogendra Raj Uttam Raj Singhvi and nine entities managed and controlled by him as their benamidars (proxy owners). After his residential premises were raided by the Income Tax authorities, Singhvi spilled the beans. He categorically admitted in a written statement on oath that he was acting as a conduit, so did the nine entities, for the unaccounted cash that was passed to him through angadiyas, providing accommodation entries for the cash as receipt from the bogus sale of diamonds. Nemichand Kawadia, one of his associates, also admitted to providing accommodation entries for a commission of 0.18 percent. The PBPTA Adjudicating Authority in its order observed that "the entire arrangement was a way to introduce unaccounted monies through the conduit of the benamidar entities managed and controlled by" him.

Singhvi categorically admitted that the nine entities "did not have genuine transactions of diamond purchase" from the Chaurasia family members. "When asked to explain, he stated that all these transactions were in nature of 'entry' for sale without actual purchase of diamonds. He stated that in lieu of money received from Shashi Kant Chaurasia & family members, he had issued bogus bills from his entities for diamond purchase and paid money in their bank accounts against such bills," the PBPTA Adjudication Authority observed in its order.

The entities involved in the movement of unaccounted monies are Bhairav Gems Pvt. Ltd., Garima Exports, Gurudev Corporation, Yogi Diam, Khushboo Diamonds Pvt. Ltd., Manmohan Exports Pvt. Ltd., Chintamani Exports, Shrenik Diamond Pvt. Ltd., and Uttam Gems Pvt. Ltd. Except Garima Exports, all benamidar entities are based in the city of Surat in Gujarat. All these benamidar corporate entities, which were said to have bought the diamonds from the Chaurasias, were not found to be involved in any business activity of substance. In other words, these were "shell entities making book entries without indulging into the real business", according to the Adjudicating Authority.

How Multi-Step Modus Operandi Worked

The Chaurasias, identified as beneficial owners, deployed a multi-step modus operandi. In the first step, the Chaurasias moved unaccounted cash to these benamidars through hawala operators called angadiyas. In the second step, these benamidars slipped the cash into the banking channels under the ruse of diamond sale proceeds. Once the laundered monies found their way into their bank accounts, they declared in their statutory filings they were in possession of rough diamonds and monies they had received was from the sale proceeds after the rough diamonds were cut and polished and sold. The next logical step for them was to claim LTCG on the incomes thus generated, providing a cloak of legitimacy to all these dubious transactions. In the final step, they made huge investments in both movable and immovable assets, including investments in properties and valuables, shares and securities, and partnership firms.

Summing up the modus operandi, the orders of the PBPTA Adjudicating Authority stated that "the money held by the beneficial owners were routed to the benamidars through the accommodation entry provider Shri Yogendra Raj Uttamraj Singhvi and the benamidars have transferred the said amounts to the Beneficial Owner through banking channels under the pretext of sale of diamonds, in violation of section 6 of the PBPT Act. The Beneficial Owner injected the laundered black money into the mainstream under the guise of capital gains which in turn were invested in properties."

The details of the investments made by Navneet Chaurasia are tabulated here:

As if in cue, Shashi Kant also made huge investments in a similar manner as shown in the table next.

As it can be gleaned from the tables, which show the share of the investors in profits, almost all entities receiving investments are common. The only difference is their number. Navneet invested in 16 entities, whereas his brother Shashi Kant had 15 entities receiving investments from him.

Interestingly, these partnership firms "came into existence around the IDS 2016" according to the Adjudicating Authority. It appears that they, too, were part of the well-thought-out schematic through which the Chaurasias orchestrated the entire money laundering operation. In its orders, the adjudicating authority observed that it was "handling eight identical cases and each one is having a person the Chaurasia family as a beneficial owner and managing the benami transactions through" Singhvi. The authority concluded that the Chaurasia family members worked as a syndicate. To quote the authority, "It must be noted that the benami transactions running into crores of rupees under sham dealings were being managed by each member in the group as a common syndicate towards the furtherance of the common objective of laundering the money raised through tax evasion. Each one of them has helped each other and abetted in the transaction of one another and contributed to the crime in each case."

It is perplexing that neither the PBPTA Adjudicating Authority nor the Income Tax Department deemed the case to be fit to be forwarded to the Enforcement Directorate for further investigation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

Appellate Tribunal's Overturn unchallenged

The orders passed by the PBPTA Adjudicating Authority on June 28, 2023 did not survive appeal. The Chaurasias and the firms named as their benamidars challenged the orders before the SAFEMA Appellate Tribunal at New Delhi, which set the orders aside on January 14, 2025. The tribunal held that no benami transaction had been proved. The tribunal also trashed a review petition the Benami Prohibition Unit had filed. Even though more than four months have passed since the tribunal dismissed the review petition on February 9, 2026, the unit has not sought any judicial remedy from the Delhi High Court. The case is not dead though, as a parallel contest before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is going on.

The tribunal’s core conclusion was that the Benmai Prohibition Unit had failed to establish any benami transaction. It held that there was no proof to establish the beneficial owners had slipped cash into the benamidars’ bank accounts. The initiating officer of the unit had failed to produce bank statements showing any such deposits, and the so-called angadiya slips were not matched to any banking entry. The statement of Singhvi, on whose written testimony the case largely rested, had been retracted. Singhvi had claimed his statement was taken under duress while a wedding was underway in his family. As regard to the declaration made under IDS 2016, the tribunal held that once the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax had accepted the declaration and issued a certificate, there was no basis to brand it fictitious. Since no transfer of consideration was proved, the dealings did not address the definition of a benami transaction under Section 2(9)(A) of the PBPT Act.

On the procedural challenge, the tribunal took a mixed view. It held that serving the show cause notice under Section 24(1) of the Act, with a copy to the benamidars – the reverse of what the statute requires – was a curable defect saved by Section 63 of the Act. But the addition of nine benamidar entities at the stage of the reference, without any notice to them, was not curable and breached natural justice.

One distinction is worth keeping in view. The tribunal’s decision rested on the initiating officer's failure to prove the case; it is not a positive finding that the wealth was lawfully earned. The order turns on unproved cash trails, a retracted statement, and an unrebutted IDS 2016 certificate, rather than on any adjudication that the diamonds and their sale were genuine beyond doubt.

In conclusion, the dismissal of the orders by the Appellate Tribunal does not certify the money was clean.

Repeat Offenders

It is not the first time the Kamla Pasand Group was found in the crosshairs with various regulatory authorities.

The group has, in fact, been in the spotlight time and again in recent past for this reason. Six years back in January 2020, for instance, the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) of the Madhya Pradesh government had raided the production units of the group, including that of Rajshree Gutkha and Black Label Gutkha. A news report published in National Herald quoted a senior official of EOW as saying, "Massive irregularities have been found from the recovered documents. Based on the findings of the Income Tax Department, we will take further action and may register FIR against the owners of the factory." The EOW raid had led to the discovery of Rs. 100 crore worth of goods in unaccounted stock and the tax evasion was estimated at around Rs. 500 crore. The state Food and Drug Administration had also found adulteration in gutkha manufactured by the company (https://www.nationalheraldindia.com/india/raid-on-gutkha-production-firm-in-mp-reveals-it-donated-indian-rupee200-cr-to-a-political-party-ahead-of-assembly-polls).

Interestingly, though the factory was owned by Kamla Kant, it was run by franchise holders Sheikh Mohammad Arif and Vaibhav Pandey. The probe, however, never reached its logical conclusion.

Referring to unnamed sources in the EOW, another news report published in 2022 said the case was closed even though an FIR had been lodged against the company.

The group found itself in the spotlight again in 2024. The Central GST officials raided two of its factories churning out Kamla Pasand Pan Masala and Rajshree Pan Masala in March that year. These factories were located in Sahibabad and Bulandshahr industrial areas. The team had seized huge quantities of pan masala from these factories that had not been accounted for. A tax evasion of Rs. 1.80 crore had been assessed. A news report published by The Times of India quoted a source in the GST Department as saying, "The evasion was done at multiple levels. For instance, many consignments of pan masala made their way out the factory without any bills whatsoever. Trucks that made multiple trips with the products used the same e-way bill, thereby evading taxes"(https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/ghaziabad/gst-team-raids-pan-masala-factories-of-kamla-pasand-co-for-tax-evasion/articleshow/108598641.cms).

The team also raided a Sahibabad-based transporter's office and had found products of three companies, including the Kamla Pasand Group, worth Rs. 8 crore. The two companies paid the taxes due but the Kamla Pasand Group senior management personnel remained evasive and uncooperative.

One year before the Special Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department, Delhi, raids on the various premises of the Kamla Pasand Group, the Special Investigation Branch (SIB) of the Commercial Taxes Department of Uttar Pradesh had conducted a similar search and seizure operation. In its July 2019 raids headed by an official of deputy commissioner level, the SIB had found the Kamla Pasand Group to have been running its business operations through benami corporate entities. One such entity identified was K Pan Fragrance P. Ltd. which was operating as a proxy for the group complete with dummy directors.

How the Long Arm of the Law Doesn't reach the Chaurasias

All the acts of omission and commission as detailed in the analysis provided in the previous paragraphs should have invited an exemplary action against the Chaurasias by the authorities concerned. There are laws which carry not only a fine but also imprisonment. Section 276C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for instance, provides for such penal provisions as imprisonment and fine. Similarly, Sections 132 and 271AAB(1A) address the unaccounted sale of products, obviously leading to tax evasion, as has been the case with the Kamla Pasand Group.

Even the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act has such punitive provisions to punish the guilty. Section 53(2) of the PBPT Act makes the beneficial owner or beneficiary of a benami transaction liable for punishment "with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to twenty-five per cent of the fair market value of the property."

"It must be noted that the benami transactions running into crores of rupees under sham dealings were being managed by each member in the group as a common syndicate towards the furtherance of the common objective of laundering the money raised through tax evasion," observed the PBPTA Adjudicating Authority, leaving no doubt about the serious nature of the offence. Yet no decisive action came through this exercise. The PBPTA Adjudicating Authority found it convenient to close the case upholding the attachment of assets acquired by the Chaurasias through benami transactions. It also did not recommend the case to the Enforcement Directorate to further investigate under the provisions of the PMLA, even though it has acknowledged the commission of offence several times in its orders, which attract the provisions of PMLA.

Apparently, the long arm of the law has so far struggled to keep its grip on the Chaurasias.

The Cobrapost team had sent detailed questionnaires to the Chaurasias, but there has been no response from them.