The Benami Prohibition Unit (BPU) of the Income Tax Department in Hyderabad has taken decisive action, provisionally attaching properties valued at approximately ₹5 crore in a significant case. The assets, registered in the name of P T Bhavani Reddy, daughter of former MLA Muttireddy Yadagiri Reddy, are under scrutiny for alleged benami transactions conducted in cash.
Details of the Attached Properties
Acting on provisional attachment orders passed on December 24, 2025, the BPU has frozen eight separate properties to prevent any transfer or disposal. The attached assets span two locations:
- Six plots in Jangaon town, with a combined area of 1,154 square yards, purchased in December 2018.
- Two properties in Cherial, Siddipet district, measuring 1,270 square yards, registered in January 2020.
The total land area under attachment is 2,424 square yards. The BPU identified Bhavani Reddy, a resident of Banjara Hills, as the benamidar—a person in whose name a benami property is held.
Investigation Reveals Owner's Lack of Knowledge
A crucial element of the case emerged from the investigation and the sworn statement of Bhavani Reddy recorded on July 31, 2025. The BPU found that the recorded owner was unaware of critical transaction details.
In her statement, Bhavani Reddy stated she had no knowledge of how the properties were acquired in her name or how the payments were made. She confirmed she never visited the properties, did not meet the sellers, and could not recall visiting the registration office. She admitted to signing the sale deed and other documents without reading them, acting solely on the advice and instructions of her father, indicating she merely lent her name for the transaction.
The BPU order also noted that claims of the purchase being funded through a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) account were not backed by any documentary evidence.
Former MLA's Objections Overruled
Former MLA Muttireddy Yadagiri Reddy raised objections against the proceedings, arguing that the notices were vague and lacked specific document identification numbers. He maintained that the funds originated from HUF agricultural activities.
The Benami Prohibition Unit rejected these objections. The authorities cited the absence of reconciled bank statements or any proof tracing the money from the HUF to the specific sale deeds. The BPU recorded its view that the funds used for the transactions likely came from unknown or fictitious sources.
The properties remain frozen as proceedings continue under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, marking a stringent step by tax authorities against concealed asset holdings.
