|
Advanced Search Options
Benami Property - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 336 Records
-
2025 (4) TMI 777
Benami Property Transactions - provisional attachment - determination of the transaction's nature - HELD THAT:- It is not disputed that M/s RK Emporium is not a shell company. The absence of Benamidars and the non-representation of them in the proceedings cannot lead to presumption of them being shell companies. Receiving payment two months in advance from M/s KS Traders who have a valid PAN ID, particularly when no transaction has ever happened between M/s KS Traders and M/s RK Emporium, is a possibility which cannot be ruled out in the realm of trading business.
Appellant has shown that in order to make supplies to M/s KS Traders it had to procure in turn from its suppliers which have been identified by the Appellant. The investigation has failed to explain the existence of bilties and the account details of the transporter.
Receipt of bank credit within three days of initiation of demonetization is a suspicious circumstance and therefore causing of investigation was warranted. However, the ensuing investigation failed to bring out evidence which would make the explanation of the Beneficial Owner as cooked up story.
We find that the Impugned Order has failed to bring out that the impugned transaction is benami within the import of Section 2(9)(A) of PBPTA.
We therefore set aside the Impugned Order and the confirmation as well as the Provisional Attachment of the impugned property of Rs.1,12,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore and Twelve Lakhs Only) deposited in the bank account of the Appellant maintained with Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., Ludhiana. The Appeal is accordingly allowed.
-
2025 (4) TMI 641
Benami Property Transaction - sum of Rs. 87,15,472/- was found in cash with the appellant - appellant gave explanation for possession of the amount while his statement was recorded at the first instance on 12.04.2019 but he had, however, changed the statement subsequently and thereby huge variation remain in the statement made by the appellant.
HELD THAT:- Appellant failed to give explanation for possession of the currency note of Rs. 87,15,472/-. He could not produce any document to show exchange of torn/soiled notes from the bank and even failed to justify excuse of imposition of Code of Conduct. If one was in a position to bring the money for exchange during the period of Code of Conduct, why they would not be in the position to collect the money immediately thereupon rather, to keep the money with the appellant for days together. Thus, the excuse taken by the appellant for imposition of Code of Conduct to justify the retention of amount with him cannot be accepted.
The further excuse to justify the possession of the notes in reference to his business of exchange of torn/soiled currency could not be proved by the appellant. He could not produce any material to show exchange of torn/soiled currency notes from the bank despite the Circular issued by the Reserve Bank of India for the aforesaid and the limit of the amount for exchange of notes.
Statements of appellant were inconsistent. He changed his version from time to time. Thus, the statements are not reliable. At the first instance, appellant had given the name of four persons. The money said to be belonging to them and accordingly summons was issued to four persons named by the appellant but only two persons responded to the summons but they denied for giving currency notes to appellant for exchange.
The appellant then changed his statement to indicate few other names and thereupon further statement has not only changed the name of the persons but also added the name of many persons said to have given currency notes for exchange. Their affidavits were produced but as an afterthought, otherwise, the appellant should have given names of those persons at the first instance. This also demolishes the case of the appellant.
Thus, we are unable to accept the arguments of the appellant that the money found with the appellant was given to him by many persons for exchange and otherwise Rs. 45,68,687/- belongs to his father who was also involved in the same business. He did not disclose aforesaid that in his first statement and even failed to explain the reason for non- disclosure and change in the statement to state that Rs. 45,68,687/- was belonging to his father in the same business. The contradiction and variations in the statement has been dealt by the Adjudicating Authority and finding it to be unreliable, the order of confirmation was passed. We do not find any error in the finding recorded by the Adjudicating Authority. Appeal dismissed.
-
2025 (4) TMI 125
Benami transaction for period of demonetization of the currency note of Rs. 500/- and Rs. 1000/- by the Government of India - circulate demonetize money to convert it to legal tender - allegation against the appellants is for their involvement to get demonetized money deposited in the bank accounts of people having no means for the total value of more than Rs. 35 crores and accordingly the prayer of the counsel for the parties to pass a common order has been accepted.
Whether the second show cause notice to transpose the beneficial owner to be abettors and abettors to be the beneficial owner is permissible under the Act of 1988? - Subsequent show cause notice dated 07.09.2018 calling upon the noticee to appear and submit reply/ defence was for 24.09.2018. The notice aforesaid was not for 30 days period as has been provided under second proviso but the material on record shows that appellant sought adjournment while putting appearance on the first date i.e. 24.09.2018 and the matter was adjourned to call upon reply on 09.10.2018 which was for the period of more than 30 days to file reply.
The subsequent show cause notice to call upon reply was for the period making it for more than of 30 days and thereby no prejudice was caused to the appellants because period to file reply was extended and thereby mandate of section 26 (1) was followed. It was otherwise a curable defect. The purpose of 30 days’ notice is to give sufficient time for response which exist in the present matter. Thus, on the facts, we do not find that section 26(1) has been contravened.
Whether property involved is benami or it is not a benami property? - The appellant, beneficial owner, has submitted that there was no benami transaction at their instance. It is submitted that not only books of accounts but stock register was produced to show the stock of gold with the appellant Companies and in fact was delivered to the purchaser who are now taken to be benamidars. It is with further statement that even the entry operators did not disclose the name of the appellant Companies named above for providing cash - We have scanned the matter carefully to analyzed the issue and find that that appellant bullion Companies had created back dated entries in the stock register and other documents which become clear from the FSL digital device report and schedule I to V. In fact, the bullion companies were not having matching stock of gold to pass it on to those firms who had transferred the amount through RTGS. The reference of audio recording to show the transaction has been given which has also been analyzed and mere recording of the transaction would not mean that actual transaction has taken.
What is required is the actual happening and not just recording of happening to take place. It is not that the documents produced by the appellant bullion companies were casually ignored rather deep routed investigation was made. The alleged delivery of gold to the benamidars through the abettors was said to have been delivered further to one ‘Mohammad’ who has refused about delivery of gold. The respondent thus tried to reach to the complete chain to find out actual happening. It is further necessary to clarify that if the gold was purchased, the appellant bullion Company should have produced the payment towards the alleged gold but no such material was produced in a specific. The critical analysis of all the issues has been made in the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority and we don't find any error therein to cause interference in the finding and accordingly the appeal fails and dismissed.
Case of the abettors - The argument against the attachment has been raised by the abettor. It is submitted that their property has been attached while they were not the beneficial owner or the benamidars. A reference of section 53 of the Act of 1988 has been given to show that abettors can be subjected to prosecution but there is no provision for attachment of their property. The counsel for the respondents made a contest to it.
We find substance in the argument of the counsel for the abettors. As per the framework of the Act of 1988, what can we attached is the benami property. In the instant case, the property in the hands of abettor has not been taken to be benami property. Respondents have failed to prove that the property of the abettors is benami property as defined under the Act of 1988. In fact, the bullion Companies were taken to be the beneficial owner and the allegation against them was to channelize the demonetized money to convert into monetized money. The money was routed through the benamidars and ultimately reached to them as stated by the respondents themselves. There is no allegation that money came to that abettor and it remained with them.
The appeals of the abettors are thus allowed. The attachment of their properties is set aside for the reason that attached property could not be proved to be benami property however they are not excluded for their role in benami transaction with consequence of section 53 of the Act of 1988.
-
2025 (3) TMI 281
Benami Property Transactions - Provisional Attachment order had held that the movable properties comprising of total cash of Rs. 98,93,34,581/- and total gold bullion weighing 166.27 kg are the Benami Property - Adjudicating Authority has not confirmed the Provisional Attachment Order
Whether the provisions of Section 2(9)(D) of the PBPTA require it to be shown that the Benamidar holds the benami property for the benefit of the Beneficial Owner, who is not traceable or fictitious? -HELD THAT:- The circumstances under which the statement or its retraction is to be accepted or rejected need to be evaluated by the Tribunal/ Court. Very circumstance of working in unison among the three partners while shifting their positions at the time of tendering statements and retractions, which are supposed to be true and voluntary, cast doubt on the veracity of their narrations.
The recovery of huge cash and gold bullion of substantial amount and quantum cannot be overlooked. The seizure was made by the Appellant only of that amount of cash and the quantum of gold which was not even explained in the parallel books of account, besides, no mention thereof in the regular books of account. The reason stated by the Respondent that Shri S Nagarathinam could not have kept record of these recoveries because the Respondent undertook sand sale at many places cannot cut much ice in view of the Firm having established businesses which how could not even keep regular accounts. It is not convincing that the Firm was clueless of its business activities so as to maintain its record even in informal accounting. It cannot also be ignored that the detection and the recovery of unaccounted cash and gold bullion happened within a months‟ time of the demonetization. The rush by the Respondent as reflected in the filing of the ITRs for the seizures effected under the PBPTA on the same date for the AYs 2016-17 & 2017-18 cannot but show their attempt to bypass the provisions of the PBPTA. It, therefore, appears to us that the seized cash and gold bullion are Benami Properties for which the Respondent lent its name rather disclose the name of the Beneficial Owner(s).
We find that the transactions or the arrangements relating to seized movable properties are Benami within the import of Sub-Section 2(9)(D) of the PBPTA. We, therefore, set aside the Impugned Order as being devoid of merit and allow the Appeal. The pending applications are accordingly disposed of.
-
2025 (2) TMI 694
Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction - Initiating Officer (IO) had provisionally attached property - purchase of gold for which the amount was transferred through RTGS - Whether the transaction involving the transfer of Rs. 1 Crore for the purchase of gold constitutes a benami transaction under PBPTA?
HELD THAT:- Appellant has admitted in his statement that the gold was not delivered directly to Smt. Suman Dua, from whose account RTGS transfer of Rs. 1 Crore was received in the account of M/s Harsh Bullion, wherein he was a partner with Shri Anoop Kumar Agrawal. The copy of the identification documents of Smt. Suman Dua was received by the Appellant through Shri Mahendra Pal Malhotra to whom gold was admittedly delivered along with the invoice thereof.
Appellant believes that having received copy of the invoice signed by Smt. Suman Dua from Shri Mahendra Pal Malhotra was sufficient as proof of his delivery of gold worth Rs.1 Crore to Smt. Suman Dua. We observe that such belief is neither corroborated by normal business practice nor supported by the fact that the transaction involved gold sale of Rs.1 Crore. While it established that the funds were transferred from the account of Smt. Suman Dua, the Appellant failed to establish the delivery to the person from whose account the amount of Rs.1 Crore was transferred to his firm M/s Harsh Bullion.
Appellant has claimed that M/s Harsh Bullion is a bonafide business entity yet no convincing argument has been made as to why it closed the Punjab & Sind Bank account Janakpuri, Bareilly on 20.06.2017 and transfer the closure proceeds to M/s Bankey Bihari Bullion, another firm of the Appellant wherein Shri Mahendra Pal Malhotra is also a partner.
The argument of the Appellant that M/s Harsh Bullion had conducted a number of transactions of Rs.10 Lakh and more in the FY 2016-17 is good enough ground as not to regard transfer of Rs.1 Crore by Smt. Suman Dua as strange is not acceptable. The transfer is not strange because of its high value but because of the circumstances in which it occurred. The initiation of the transfer of funds in the name of Smt. Suman Dua, in the presence of Shri Mahendra Pal Malhotra from the branch in which Shri Malhotra had an account appears suspicious.
It is all the more strange that Smt. Suman Dua did not have an account in the same branch. She is supposedly to have deposited Rs.1 Crore in cash which was accepted by the Chief Manager of the said branch in spite of her not being an account holder in the same branch.
Appellant went on to deliver gold to Shri Malhotra. The Appellant was sure of having delivered it to Smt. Suman Dua because the invoice was signed by Smt. Dua, that too, in the absence of the Appellant and to accept the signed invoice received from Shri Malhotra as a token of receipt of gold worth Rs.1 Crore make the transaction ‘strange' and inexplicable.
Appellant cannot maintain that he acted in good faith. Shri Mahendra Pal Malhotra is also a partner in his other firm of M/s Bankey Bihari Bullion to which the closure proceeds of the account of M/s Harsh Bullion were transferred on 20.06.2017. The inconsistencies pointed out by the Appellant in the statements of Smt. Suman Dua cannot wipe out the circumstances under which the said transaction occurred. Appeal dismissed.
-
2025 (2) TMI 323
Benami transaction - Provisional Attachment Order - Beneficial Owner - HELD THAT:- We observe that the alleged Benami Property has been attached by the Enforcement Directorate under provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
However, we note that in the criminal prosecutions undertaken, no action has been initiated against Shri Ravindra Kumar, Proprietor, M/s R K Emporium. Respondent No. 2 has also not been prosecuted as an accused under PMLA.
We find that the parameters of classifying a transaction as either Benami or Money Laundering are separate, as is evident from the definition clauses of PBPTA and PMLA. Moreover, the investigation has itself revealed that the funds were transferred from M/s Yashawini Exports, which is owned and controlled by Shri Yogesh Mittal and not By Shri Ravindra Kumar, the alleged Beneficial Owner. Appeal dismissed.
-
2025 (1) TMI 1333
Benami Property Transactions - orders under Section 26 (3) of Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act - provisional attachment orders - Interpretation of Section 24(1) - HELD THAT:- Writ petition was initially filed at the stage when the orders u/s 26 (3) of the Act were yet to be passed.
After the said orders were passed, an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of Civil Procedure Code was filed by the Petitioners seeking amendment of the writ petition and to seek further relief for quashing of the said orders under Section 26 (3) of the Act.
This application also sought to place on record the orders passed u/s 26 (3) of the Act. Notice was issued in this application on 16th May, 2023 and the said amendment application is still pending adjudication before this Court.
Petitioners, for whatever reason, have sought to raise very broad challenges to the provisions itself in this writ petition. They have also brought on record the orders passed by the Adjudicating Authority under Section 26 (3) .
Petitioners, under normal circumstances, would have been entitled to file the appeals before the Appellate Tribunal, however, the Petitioners did not avail of the said remedy when available, and had chosen to dispute the vires of the foundational provisions of the Act before this Court.
Ill-advised the said remedy i.e., to place the orders on record and file a writ petition before this Court challenging the provisions of the Act and the orders under Section 26 (3) of the Act, may have been, it cannot be said that the same is not a good faith proceeding.
As noted by this Court that the appeals, as per Section 46 of the Act, have to be filed within forty-five days, however, the delay, if sufficient cause is shown, is condonable,
This Court is of the opinion that the Petitioners ought to be relegated to the appellate remedy, as they no longer press the challenge to the validity of the provisions of the Act. The Petitioners may accordingly file appeals under Section 46 of the Act challenging the orders under Section 26 (3) of the Act, before the Appellate Tribunal.
Period during which the present writ petition remained pending would be liable to be excluded from the limitation period in terms of Section 14 of the Limitation Act.
As made clear that this liberty is subject to the condition that the Petitioners prefer the appeals before the Appellate Tribunal by 28th February, 2025. If the said appeals are filed by 28th February, 2025 before the Appellate Tribunal, the appeals shall not be dismissed on the ground of being barred by limitation or delay.
Confiscation proceedings - Confiscation proceedings are listed before the Adjudicating Authority on 28th January, 2025 at 2.30 p.m. On the said date, the pleadings have to be completed before the Adjudicating Authority. The Petitioners are permitted to place today’s order of this Court permitting them to file the appeals before the Adjudicating Authority in which case, the Adjudicating Authority shall afford time to the Petitioners before proceeding further - in terms of the Proviso to Sec. 27 (1) of the Act.
-
2025 (1) TMI 1332
Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions - Provisional Attachment Order - real owner - relationship between the alleged Benamidar (Sh. Onkar Singh) and the Beneficial Owner (Sh. Dwarika Gupta) - only contention advanced on behalf of the Appellants is the existence of a fiduciary relationship between the alleged Benamidar and him, thus bringing it under exception provided u/s 2(9)(A)(ii) of the PBPT Act, 1988, as amended by the Act of 2016.
HELD THAT:- In the present case, it is categorically asserted by the Appellant in all the pleadings that the properties had been bought in the name of the Benamidar by the Beneficial Owner because of the prohibition under the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code on purchase land of Scheduled Tribe by non-ST person as per section 165(6). Thus, the entire transaction of the appellant was to contravene the provisions of a law.
We are of the view that the "agreement"/ "authority letter" placed by the Appellants on record cannot be relied upon. The Ld. AA noted certain discrepancies. Furthermore, it is clearly evident from the facts on record that the two appellants in these two appeals were hand-in-glove with each other in the entire set of transactions.
As such, it would not have been difficult for them to create a self-serving document of this nature to justify their actions which were in defiance not only of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, but also the letter and spirit of the PBPT Act, 1988 (as amended in 2016).
In the present case not only was there a transfer of title to the property in the name of the Benamidar, Sh. Onkar Singh but also the same was for the unlawful purpose of circumventing the law regarding purchase of tribal land by non-tribals. On both counts, therefore, the exception under Section 2(9)(A)(ii) is not available to the appellants in the present case.
The relevant facts are that the said properties were owned by persons belonging to ST community and Sh. Dwarika Gupta has asked Sh. Onkar Singh to purchase the same on his behalf and also provided him with Sh. Onkar Singh to purchase the same on his behalf and also provided him with the necessary funds. The initial sale deeds were transferred in favour of Sh. Divya deep Gupta, son of Sh. Dwarika Gupta. From these facts, it is evident that not only the lands were purchased in the name of the benamidar (Sh. Onkar Singh) for consideration provided by the beneficial owner (Sh. Gupta), but the same were held by the former for the benefit of the latter. The subsequent transfer by Sh. Onkar Singh to Divya deep Gupta, s/o Dwarika Gupta would therefore, be direct contravention of Section 6 of the Act and, as such, null and void. Accordingly, the same has rightly been attached as benami property. The appellant's contention in this regard is, therefore, rejected.
Matter be remitted back to the Ld. Adjudicating Authority for a factual verification as to whether the properties at serial no. 4 to 10 belonged to or stood in the name of Shri Onkar Singh Gond and to record a fresh finding whether they constituted benami properties within the meaning of the PBPT Act, 1988 (as amended by the Act of 2016). The Ld. AA would afford the Appellant a reasonable opportunity to be heard and to adduce necessary documentary evidence in this regard. The needful would be done within a period six months from the date of communication of this order. It is made clear that the matter is remanded back to the Ld. AA only for the limited purpose as stated in the preceding paragraph.
In reference to the other properties constituting the subject matter of this appeal, namely, the properties listed at Sl. Nos. 1-3, 11& 12, 13-15,16 & paragraphs 3 to 57, the appeal shall stand dismissed.
-
2025 (1) TMI 802
Benami Transactions - beneficial owner of subject property Whether alleged Benamidars and the Beneficial Owner constitute "Benami Transactions" under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 (PBPTA)? - HELD THAT:- It is an admitted fact that only partial payments have been made by the alleged Benamidars to the interested party M/s ICON Constructions. These partial payments were made on signing of Agreement of Sale.
Adjudicating Authority has not held the impugned property as Benami as the title therein was yet to be transferred to the alleged Benamidars in view of sale having not been completed due to partial payments made by the alleged Benamidars.
There is nothing on record which could have let the Ld. Adjudicating Authority to provisionally attach any other property for which it could have carried reason to believe to hold that as Benami Property.
Out of the total sale consideration of Rs.471.54 Lakhs for all the impugned properties only Rs.173.00 Lakhs was paid by the 8 alleged Benamidars. The interested party M/s ICON Constructions has also maintained that none of the Benamidars acquired any rights, interest and title to the impugned properties. Therefore M/s ICON Constructions continue to remain owner and in possession of the impugned properties. M/s ICON Constructions maintained that they had rented the commercial units to tenants for which they received the rental income. In view of this, the applicability of Section 2 (9) (A) is doubtful as neither the impugned properties were transferred to the alleged Benamidars nor the impugned properties were held by the alleged Benamidars.
Even if we accept that there were cash infusions into the bank accounts of the alleged Benamidars, there is no evidence on record as to show that such infusions were made by the Beneficial Owner.
Thus we find that neither the properties which have been provisionally attached are Benami nor the transactions which have occurred with respect to the impugned properties are Benami. We are therefore unable to interfere with the Impugned Order.
-
2025 (1) TMI 801
Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions - beneficial owner of subject property - HELD THAT:- We note that out of the total sale consideration of Rs.2.35 Crores for the impugned property only Rs.1.94 Crores was paid by the alleged Benamidar. The interested party M/s North Star Homes has also maintained that the Benamidar has not acquired any rights, interest and title to the impugned property.
Therefore M/s North Star Homes continue to remain owner and in possession of the impugned property.
The applicability of Section 2 (9) (A) is doubtful as neither the impugned property was transferred to the alleged Benamidar nor the impugned property was held by the alleged Benamidar. Even if we accept that there were cash infusions into the bank accounts of the alleged Benamidar, there is no evidence on record as to show that such infusions were made by the Beneficial Owner.
We find that neither the property which has been provisionally attached is Benami nor the transaction which has occurred with respect to the impugned property is Benami. We therefore set aside the Impugned Order.
-
2024 (12) TMI 238
Benami transactions for the cash - Orders for attachment of the property - benamidars appellant before this Tribunal were holding the cash on trust under fiduciary capacity - on what cases the property held by someone else on trust can be taken to be under fiduciary capacity?
HELD THAT:- The evidence available on record proves it because the money was channelized through shell companies and for that the accounts were opened so that cash amount of demonetized currency can be deposited in the account and thereupon, through banking channels, it is transferred so as to make it monetized money. The purpose aforesaid is apparent and cannot be accepted that the appellant Nitin Gupta has given the currency notes to three others under trust rather it was for purpose of getting it converted to monetize, thus we do not find that the case in hand would fall under one of exception to section 2(9)(A) of the Act of 1988 and therefore, the judgment of Tribunal in Sivashankari & Anr [2024 (9) TMI 130 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA AT NEW DELHI] and so as the judgment of the Apex court in the case of Sri Marcel Martins (supra) would have no application. In those cases, the property was given to others on trust and not for its use for illegal purpose or any other purpose and therefore, it was found to be a simple case of passing of the property to keep it in fiduciary capacity which is not the case in hand. Thus, we are unable to accept the first argument raised by the counsel for the appellant.
Notice was served to Nitin Gupta u/s 24(1) of the Act of 1988 treating him to be benamidar of the cash recovered from Mohit Garg, Raj Kumar Sharma and Devendra Kumar Jha - As at the time of issuance of the notice, the IO had relied on the material available on record at the relevant time. However, during the course of adjudication, there was change in the statement of appellant Nitin Gupta and accordingly the order was passed holding him to be the beneficial owner. The appellant Nitin Gupta in his statement dated 26.09.2018 u/s 19(1)(b) of the Act of 1988 stated that he has made a declaration of his income under the Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Yojana, 2016. The appellant Nitin Gupta thus, changed his stand and stated that the money was belonging to him. In view of the changed stand and the plea raised before the Adjudicating Authority, he was transformed from benamidar to beneficial owner. The appellant is trying to seek benefit of his own default of change in his version and accordingly for that reason also, we are unable to accept the second ground raised by the appellant.
Case of the appellant is that demonetized money had no fair market value and thus, could not have been termed to be property - We find no force in the argument because the currency notes of 1000 and 500 were demonetized by the Government of India but with the permission to tender the notes for getting monetized money. The period for it was given and thereby, the demonetized money could have been used for getting it to be monetized. The time was extended by the RBI and if aforesaid is taken into consideration with the date of search and seizure, it would become clear that on the date of search and seizure the demonetized money could have been converted into monetized with its deposit in the bank and could have been by way of tender. It was thus a property with its fair market value. Thus, we are unable to accept the argument of the counsel for the appellant that demonetized money was not having fair market value at the time of its seizure and accordingly even the third argument is rejected.
Finding recorded by the IO going contrary to record - The argument was made by the appellant referring to record but we do not find, that the finding recorded by the IO and ultimately by the Adjudicating Authority is contrary to record. In fact IO, caused investigation/inquiry and what was found in the inquiry has been recorded. At the initial stage, appellant Nitin Gupta did not accept the currency notes to be belonging to him rather he disowned the ownership of the currency notes. Accordingly, the case was taken up for causing show cause notice but during the course of adjudicating proceedings, the appellant Nitin Gupta came out with a changed stand and claimed ownership of currency notes. Since there was change in version, the case was adjudicated by the Adjudicating Officer as per the material found available with it. In the light of the aforesaid, we are unable to accept even the last argument of the appellant. Appeal fails.
-
2024 (11) TMI 625
Benami Property Transactions - attachment and the reference made by the Initiating Officer (IO) - allegation against the appellant was for acquisition of benami properties while he was employee of Piyush Gupta, the defendant No.2 before the Adjudicating Authority. The appellant was getting meagre salary of Rs. 15,000/- per month. However, during the course of search and seizure, it was found that the appellant Mohd. Farooq made investment of Rs.1,41,37,500/- - HELD THAT:- We find that the appellant could not produce any document worth acceptance to prove the source of income for purchase of properties for the total value of Rs.1,41,37,500/- which includes the property at Item No.8 of Table `A’ but even for the properties mentioned at Item Nos. 1 to 7, the appellant failed to prove the source for its acquisition.
Appellant has tried to make out a case for disclosure of source of income by submitting the documents along with the rejoinder but they have not been accepted in absence of application for taking additional documents on record at the appellate stage and otherwise it was not pressed by the appellant. We otherwise find that the assessment order for the block period 2011-12 to 2021-22 is subsequent to the impugned order and cannot support the appellant. The perusal of the assessment order otherwise shows the conduct of the appellant as he could not show source to acquire the properties while his statements were recorded under Section 19 of the Act but submitted I.T. return subsequent to it.
The addition of income can be acceptable under the Income-Tax Act but it cannot be used for adjudication under the Act of 1988 and otherwise if the practice adopted by the appellant is accepted, every benamidaror beneficial owner get the assessment of block years by one order after paying the income tax and penalty without submission of proof of income before the IO or the Adjudicating Authority. We have made comment in reference to the assessment order though a serious objection of the document has been taken and as such we have not recorded our finding going deep in the assessment order but touching the legal background under which assessment of income by the Income-tax authority has been made vis-à-vis the adjudication under the Act of 1988.
The detailed finding recorded by the Adjudicating Authority rather disclosed as to how the benami properties came in the name of the appellant benamidar. The finding in regard to each benami property has been recorded. The payment to acquire the property said to have been made largely in cash without disclosing the source for acquiring the cash. The Adjudicating Authority has made detailed discussion for purchase of each property vis-à-vis the source of income.
Thus, finding that the appellant failed to submit the material to prove the source of income before the Adjudicating Authority and even while filing the appeal, no document was submitted to prove the source for acquisition of property. The documents submitted along with rejoinder were without permission of the appellate court and were not relied later on by the counsel. The learned counsel for the appellant referred to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of GanpatiDealcom [2022 (8) TMI 1047 - SUPREME COURT] and more specifically reference of Paras 67,68,124 and 125 has been given.
The fact, however, remains that the Apex Court has recalled its judgment in the case of GanpatiDealcom (supra) by the order [2024 (10) TMI 1120 - SC ORDER (LB)] Thus, argument raised by the appellant in reference to the aforesaid judgment no more holds field. We have otherwise analyzed the case to find out the source to acquire the property by the appellant and finding no material favourable to the appellant, the appeal would fail and is dismissed.
-
2024 (11) TMI 624
Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction - attachment order of gold and silver articles from lockers - identification of beneficial locker holders - HELD THAT:- The conduct of the parties speaks for itself. If the things would have been bona fide, the SVPL should have disclosed that lockers in the name of Shiv Daga belongs to the appellant and could have produced the request letter for change of name at the time of investigation by the I.O. SVPL has shown it to be their bona fide mistake for non disclosure but, other than the aforesaid lame excuse, no other justification could be given.
The excuse was not acceptable not only for the reason that when search and seizure was made in reference to few lockers, the onus was on the SVPL and also on the appellant to immediately submit the true facts if it was true and not to cook up the story subsequently. The facts on record show how the things changed when the SVPL try to come to rescue of the appellant. The Company is equally responsible for the benami transaction because they did not take KYC documents despite the fact that it became mandatory in the year 2016 and continued the locker in the name of Shiv Daga. This highlights the conduct of SVPL.
The fact now remains about the request letter given by the appellant to change the name from Shiv Daga to Shiv Narayan Baheti starting from the year 2013. The reminder was given even in the year 2015. It ishowever a fact that name was changed subsequent to the search and seizure. The only reason for delaying the change of the name was in absence of the payment which is shown to have been paid in the year 2019 without putting any documents as to show what was the arrangement between appellant and the SVPL for operation of lockers and what was the rent decided amongst them.
We have already highlighted the conduct of SVPL who is trying to support the appellant because their mis-doings are also highlighted for not taking KYC in the year 2016, otherwise the things would have been settled in the year 2016 itself. To cover up the defaults, they said to have accepted the payment. The appellant has not placed on record even the agreement between him and the SVPL to justify delay in change of the name. In fact the appellant and SVPL were hand in glove to mis-lead the respondent.
In any case, the fact further remains that the appellant argued the case at length but failed to disclose the source of acquisition of gold and silver and in absence of it, the view cannot be taken in favour of the appellant. The appellant was under obligation not only to prove that lockers were belonging to him but to prove ownership of the gold and silver to disclose the means for acquisition of it, but there is total failure of the appellants to do so.
Thus, we are unable to take a view favourable to the appellant on the facts.
Whether no notice under section 24 (1) of the Act of 1988 was given to the appellant and thus the entire proceeding would vitiate? - As we have gone through the record and find that notice under section 24 (1) was given to Shiv Daga and 24 (2) was given to SVPL. On the service of show cause notice, the SVPL disclosed that lockers belong to the appellant. When information aforesaid given in the midstof the proceedings, the appellant was summoned who not only appeared but also made the written submission.
No violation of section 24 (1) because purpose of issuance of the notice is to call upon the reply and in fact it was given to the appellant if he claims to be Shiv Daga by himself. It is not that respondent did not issue notice under section 24 (1) rather it was sent in the name of Shiv Dagaat the address of the appellant and if the name of the appellant is Shiv Narayan Baheti alias Shiv Daga then the compliance of section 24 (1) was made and otherwise the appellant made representation of his case before the IO. Thus, the attachment followed by reference cannot be held to be illegal. It is more so when the appellant was given full opportunity of hearing before the Adjudicating Authority to canvas his case but the order of the confirmation was made when appellant failed to make out a case. Thus, full opportunity of hearing was provided to the appellant and thereby the proceeding would not vitiate on the ground taken by him. Appeal dismissed.
-
2024 (11) TMI 623
Prohibition of Benami Properties Transaction - attachment order - applicability of the amended provisions of the Act of 1988 by the Amending Act of 2016 - as argued property purchased by the appellant was not out of the benami transaction and otherwise the purchase of the property was much prior to the amendment in the Act of 1988 by the Amending Act of 2016 with effect from 01.11.2016.
HELD THAT:- The facts on record shows attachment of one agricultural land having area of 0.610 hectare of khasra number 526/3 in village Girdava of Saharanpur, UP. said to have been effected by the benami transaction. It is not in dispute that the I.O. could not identify the beneficial owner and therefore the order has been passed against the benamidar.
Adjudicating Authority has taken note of the fact that the transaction in question is prior to the amendment by the Amending Act, 2016 but finding has been recorded adverse to the appellant by treating amending provision to have retrospective application.
Though, now the position is clear in the light of the judgement of “Union of India & Anr. Versus M/s. Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd.” [2022 (8) TMI 1047 - SUPREME COURT] that it has prospective application. Therefore, we need not to refer detailed facts of the case regarding the purchase of the property and source disclosed by the appellant being a transaction prior to 01.11.2016 and is not falling u/s 2 (9A) of the amended provision.
We find that the impugned order has been passed while considering the facts of the case but treating it to be a case u/s 2 (9) (A) of the Amending Act though the person alleged to have provided the consideration for purchase of the property is not known.
Adjudicating Authority in the discussion part recorded that transaction fall under section 2 (9) (A) in ignorance of the fact that beneficial owner has not been identified. In fact, it was through out considered to be a case falling u/s 2 (9B) of the Act of 1988 as amended by the Amending Act of 2016. The conclusions have not been specifically drawn in reference to section 2 (9 )(A) but it has been referred in discussion part.
Amended provisions would not apply retrospectively rather it would have prospective application and thereby the transfer prior to 01.11.2016 not falling in the definition of the benami transaction under the section 2 (9) (A) of the Amending Act, 2016 would be squarely covered by the judgement of “Union of India & Anr. Versus M/s. Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd.”.
The exception may be if a case is falling under section 2 (9) (A) of the amended definition of benami transaction for which a detailed judgement has been given by the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Prism Scan Express Pvt. Ltd. [2024 (1) TMI 203 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR SAFEMA AT NEW DELHI].
-
2024 (11) TMI 217
Benami transaction - Plaintiff seeking a mandatory injunction in respect of property Restraining the defendants from creating any third-party interest qua the suit property - plaintiff further seeks a permanent injunction against the defendants restraining them from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit property and interfering/or obstructing with the plaintiff’s possession, occupation and enjoyment of the suit property - plaintiff is a permanent resident of Canada as well as naturalized Canadian citizen.
HELD THAT:- In the facts of this case, it is apparent that late Sardar Nirmal Singh as an extended family member was permitted by late Sh. Raghbir Singh to occupy a portion of the suit property as a licensee. In ordinary course, owners permit extended family members to use and occupy immovable properties out of love and affection on the reasonable belief that the property will be vacated by the family member when called upon by the owner. To permit late Sardar Nirmal Singh or his family member to contend that the evidence of their possession in the suit property without payment of rent or licence fee would entitle them to raise a claim of ownership would be putting premium on a dishonest plea and would also be an abuse of the exception provided in proviso 2(ii) to Section 2 (9) (A) of the Benami Act.
In the facts of this case, upon perusal of the averments made in the plaint and the documents annexed with the plaint, this Court is of the considered opinion that the plaintiff has failed to prove that late Sh. Raghbir Singh held the suit property in a fiduciary capacity qua Sardar Nirmal Singh.
This Court finds that the suit lacks a cause of action. Furthermore, the plea of ownership raised is barred under Section 4 of the Benami Act.
The judgment of the Supreme Court in Pankaja [2004 (8) TMI 716 - SUPREME COURT] relied upon by the plaintiff in support of their amendment application, is misplaced. The ratio which flows form the said judgement is that an amendment of pleadings must not be disallowed merely on the ground that the relief sought is barred by limitation which does not apply to the facts of the present case. Accordingly, the suit is rejected under Order VII Rule 11(a) and 11(d) of the CPC.
The suit property comprises of a superstructure comprising ground floor, first floor, second floor and terrace on a plot admeasuring 250 sq. yds. The plaintiff asserts that he is in actual physical possession of the entire second floor along with terrace; and is in constructive possession of the remaining floors which are in the physical possession of the tenants.
Issuance of mandatory injunction to the plaintiff to handover peaceful and vacant possession to the defendant no. 1 - Keeping in view, the judgments of the Supreme Court in Maria Margadia Sequeria Fernandes v. Erasmo Jack De Sequeria [2012 (3) TMI 594 - SUPREME COURT] judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Liberty Sales Services v. Jakki Mull & Sons [1997 (2) TMI 601 - DELHI HIGH COURT] and Nathu Ram v. DDA [2022 (2) TMI 1479 - DELHI HIGH COURT] this Court hereby passes a decree of mandatory injunction directing the plaintiff herein to handover the vacant physical possession of the portion occupied by him in the suit property to the defendant no. 1 within four (4) weeks from today having come to this conclusion that he is in illegal and unauthorised possession of the suit property. The order for payment of mesne profits for the continued illegal possession w.e.f. 01.05.2022 is being passed.
Accordingly, the reliefs sought by the plaintiff are dismissed in the aforesaid terms along with all pending application and a mandatory injunction is passed against the plaintiff and in favour of defendant no. 1.
Award of actual costs in favour of the defendant - This Court is of the considered opinion that this suit filed by the plaintiff is an abuse of process. The Supreme Court in Ramrameshwari Devi & Others v. Nirmala Devi [2011 (7) TMI 1305 - SUPREME COURT] has opined that uncalled for litigation gets encouragement because Courts do not impose realistic costs.
Keeping in view the Section 35 (2) of CPC, Rules 1 (i) & 2 of Chapter XXIII of Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018 and the judgment of Ramrameshwari Devi (Supra), this Court deems it appropriate to impose actual costs on the plaintiff and payable to the defendants. For the purpose of determining the actual cost incurred by the defendants to be paid by the plaintiff herein, the Taxing Officer of this Court is directed to take appropriate steps in accordance with the provisions of Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018 (‘Original Side Rules, 2018’).
List before the Taxing Officer/concerned Joint Registrar on 03.12.2024.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1120
Constitutional validity of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 - Scope of the unamended provisions - whether the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 as amended by the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 has a prospective effect? - HELD THAT:- The Court has declared Section 3(2) of the unamended provisions of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act 1988 as unconstitutional for being manifestly arbitrary and as violative of Article 20(1) of the Constitution. The provisions of Section 5 of the unamended Act, prior to the Amendment of 2016, have been declared to be unconstitutional on the ground that they are manifestly arbitrary.
It is not disputed that there was no challenge to the constitutional validity of the unamended provisions. This is also clear from the formulation of the question which arose for consideration before the Bench which has been extracted above. In the submissions of parties which have been recorded in the judgment, the issue of constitutional validity was not squarely addressed.
A challenge to the constitutional validity of a statutory provision cannot be adjudicated upon in the absence of a lis and contest between the parties. We accordingly allow the review petition and recall the judgment [2022 (8) TMI 1047 - SUPREME COURT] dated 23 August 2022. Civil Appeal No 5783 of 2022 shall stand restored to file for fresh adjudication before a Bench to be nominated by the Chief Justice of India on the administrative side.
Where any other proceedings have been disposed of by relying on the judgment of this Court in Ganpati Dealcom Private Ltd [2022 (8) TMI 1047 - SUPREME COURT] liberty is granted to the aggrieved party to seek a review in view of the present judgment.
-
2024 (10) TMI 298
Benami transaction - Statements were recorded u/s 132(4) of the Income Tax Act during search, wherein appellant had accepted purchase of the assets which includes the chit funds by Rajesh in his name - Whether the properties and assets in question were acquired through benami transactions? - HELD THAT:- There are catena of judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court to deny reliance on a sworn statement recorded u/s 108 of Custom Act or it may be Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act for conviction of a person. Those judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court operate on the prosecution case against the accused but would not apply to the proceedings, which does not involve conviction of the person rather is taken up on revenue side. The marked difference between two types of proceedings has to recognized. For conviction of a person there would be necessity to apply the process given under CrPC and even under Evidence Act which is not mandated for the proceedings by the Revenue for attachment or for imposition of penalty. In the light of the aforesaid, we are unable to accept first argument raised by the appellant.
Since we have decided the first issue against the appellant and thereby sworn statement u/s 132(4) of Income Tax Act can be relied even in the proceedings under the Act of 1988. The respondents were not under obligation to record separate statement by holding enquiry. In fact, the Initiating Officer had taken up issues while passing the order and appeal before the Adjudicating Authority, all the issues raised by the Appellants were threshold decided.
The argument of Appellant is that even the chits in the name of the Appellant were out of the sources disclosed by him while it is a fact that in the statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Income Tax Act it was admitted that chit fund was operated at the instance of Rajesh of M.R. Traders. The arguments have been raised against the sworn statement of the Appellant and others to prove the case. It is apart from the fact that the appellant failed to produce a document to prove income from poultry or agriculture while the certificate of VEO was submitted. It is said to be based on the enquiry and not in reference to revenue record. VEO is custodian of revenue record and could have certified the agricultural activities on the land, but the certificate issued by him was based on the information and not the revenue record. Thus, the Adjudicating Authority rightly clarified the position aforesaid to hold it to be case of benami transaction.
Statement of Rajesh and other were relevant to substantiate the fact that chits were out of benami transaction. The appellant, however, referred to the Bank Account in South Indian Bank to fortify his income and source for putting money in chits. The aforesaid was also analysed and found that it was out of cheque and were from Fortune Wheat Products, which is a business concern of Mr. Rajesh. It is necessary to indicate that other than the certificate and few documents, the appellants failed to produce any material to substantiate his plea of earning of money out of poultry or agriculture. At this stage, it would further be necessary to indicate that the maturity amount out of the chit has also been taken note of by the Adjudicating Authority.
No explanation for transfer of the said amount to the firm belonging to Mr. Rajesh has been given. The aforesaid was also taken as clinching evidence to prove a case of benami transaction. It is also a fact that total area of the land is shown to be 0.5160 acres, but nothing has been mentioned about other land of Survey No.325/6 in his certificate. The appellant has shown income out of agriculture land, which was otherwise deposited through cash and source could not be proved. The critical analysis of it has also been made by the Adjudicating Authority and it has not been questioned.
No explanation for transfer of the said amount to the firm belonging to Mr. Rajesh has been given. The aforesaid was also taken as clinching evidence to prove a case of benami transaction. It is also a fact that total area of the land is shown to be 0.5160 acres, but nothing has been mentioned about other land of Survey No.325/6 in his certificate. The appellant has shown income out of agriculture land, which was otherwise deposited through cash and source could not be proved. The critical analysis of it has also been made by the Adjudicating Authority and it has not been questioned.
-
2024 (9) TMI 720
Benami transaction - Provisional Attachment Order u/s 24(4) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 - events of transaction pre- amendment and the post - HELD THAT:- It is even by giving illustration that even if the property has been purchased prior to the amendment w.e.f. 01.11.2016, then it would be subject to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ganpati Delcom [2022 (8) TMI 1047 - SUPREME COURT]
It is, however, with the clarification that if such a property is transferred prior to the amendment but heldeven after the amendment by the Benamidar, then initiation of action under the amended provision would not be invalid. The significance of the word `held‟ given under Section 2(9)(A) has been elaborately discussed which word was not existing in the earlier definition of Benami transaction (pre-amendment).
In the instant case, the Company in whose name the property was purchased i.e. M/s Seasons Warehousing Pvt. Ltd. had no capacity to purchase the property worth of Rs. 01 Crore because as per the annual return submitted with the ROC, it was having worth of around 7 lakhs and that too in the Financial Year 1998-99. It is also a fact that the ITR for the Assessment Year 2020-21 filed by M/s Voltamp Controls Pvt. Ltd. reflected the address of the said property.
Adjudicating Authority ignored the definition of “Benami transaction” given under the amending Act of 2016 while passing the order. The property in question was purchased in the name of M/s Seasons Warehousing Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent No. 1 whereas it was not having means to pay consideration. M/s Voltamp Controls (I) Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent No. 2 was holding the property in the name of M/s Seasons Warehousing Pvt. Ltd.
Respondents did not contest the factual issues. It may be for the reason that the purchase of the property in the name of M/s Seasons Warehousing Pvt. Ltd. is for a sum of Rs. 01 Crores whereas the Company was not having sufficient funds to purchase the property worth of Rs. 01 Crores. It was thus held by M/s Voltamp Controls (I) Pvt. Ltd. and the address of the property was given even in the Income-tax return. Accordingly, the consideration of the property was paid by M/s Voltamp Controls (I) Pvt. Ltd but it was using the name of M/s Seasons Warehousing Pvt. Ltd. in whose name the Registered Deed was executed.
We find reasons to cause interference in the impugned order.
-
2024 (9) TMI 719
Benami transaction - beneficial owner of the currency seized from Bikky Kumar Singh - as argued no evidence could be produced by the respondent to prove appellant to be beneficial owner of the currency seized from Bikky Kumar Singh - HELD THAT:- The statement initially recorded un/s 132(4) of the Income Tax Act have been corroborated by the Bikky Kumar Singh. The statement aforesaid has been quoted in the impugned order to show involvement of the appellant. The elaborate discussion on the issue has been made but now appellant has disowned the currency notes and pleading to this effect has been made in the appeal. The counsel for the appellant could not clarify that if the currency notes does not belongs to the appellant, how he is aggrieved by the attachment of the aforesaid amount which was seized from the possession of Bikky Kumar Singh. In fact, filing the appeal would show interest of the appellant in the currency and would be only when it belongs to him and not otherwise.
In any case, we do not find any substance in the argument of the appellant to state that no evidence or material has been produced by the respondents to prove case against him. Rather, the material available on record was considered by the Adjudicating Authority and elaborate finding was recorded thereupon. It is based on the material. Thus, we are unable to accept the first argument raised by the appellant.
First statement u/s 132(4) was recorded on 06.02.2017 by the Income Tax Authority while the subsequent statement under section 19(1)(b) of the Act of 1988 was recorded on 17th and 18th January, 2018, i.e. with the delay of almost eleven months - Appellant however failed to refer to any provision which mandates that statement should be recorded within the specific period and otherwise as such there is no variance in the two statements of Bikky Kumar Singh recorded under section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act and the subsequent statement under section 19(1)(b) of the Act of 1988. Thus, even second argument raised by the appellant cannot be accepted in absence of a statutory provision to mandate recording of the statement within the specific period.
Adjudication of benami property - impugned order that 25.04.2019 was passed after one year after the date of reference which is 26.03.2018 -Section 26(7) mandates order under sub-section 3 of section 26 within a period of one year from the end of the month in which reference under sub-section (5) of section 24 was received. The learned counsel for the appellant has ignored the word “received” rather it was taken to be the “date of reference”. In fact, no pleading has been made to plead the order was passed beyond a period of one year from the date of receipt of the reference. Though, the issue aforesaid is mixed question of facts and law. In any case, it was clarified by the respondent that reference dated 26.03.2018 was received by the Adjudicating Authority in the month of April 2018 who then caused show cause notice to Bikky Kumar Singh with a copy to the appellant in the month of April 2018 and the order was passed within one year from the date of receipt of the reference. In fact, from the end of the month of the receipt of the reference, the impugned order was passed within one year. Thus, the third issue raised by the appellant is also not made out though was not even pleaded in the appeal.
Notice and attachment of property involved in benami transaction - As provision of section 24(2) of the Act of 1988 its not mandate issuance of notice in the name of beneficial owner rather what is required is a copy of the notice to the beneficial owner. In the instant case, a copy of the notice was sent to the appellant and perusal of the pleading of the appeal would show not only its receipt but reply to the notice by the appellant. It could not have been, if the copy of the notice would not have been served on the appellant. In fact, the appellant has admitted service of the copy of the notice as per section 24(2) of the Act though it is to be given to the benamidar but copy was given to beneficial owner. Thus, the argument in reference to section 24(2) is also not made out.
Approval required under section 24(4)(A)(i) - We find that approval aforesaid was granted by the Competent Authority and was a part of the record. For the compliance, the respondent was directed to place on record the order of the approval which was submitted with the copy to the appellant.
In view of the above even the last issue raised by the appellant in reference to the requirement of approval under section 24(4)(a)(i) is concerned, the compliance of the aforesaid also exist. It was for continuing the provisional attachment of the property.
Appeal dismissed.
-
2024 (9) TMI 718
Benami transaction - reliance on sworn statement u/s 32(4) to make out a case of benami transaction - reference of the meaning of “fiduciary capacity” - appellant would submit that the cash with the alleged benamidars was not in the capacity of trustee, executor, partner or a Director of the Company, thus would not fall in one of the exception given under sub-clause (ii) - HELD THAT:- The fiduciary capacity cannot be used as an exception in all the circumstances which may include transfer of property for or is held for illegal purpose. It cannot be even when there is a concluded contract which pass on the title to others then keeping the property by the person on whose favour title gets transferred would not keep it in “fiduciary capacity” rather with the transfer of the title, the relationship would also change and those cases would not fall in the sweep of the exception of fiduciary capacity. It would be simpliciter in those cases where the money has been kept with other person on trust for safe custody. It would not apply even in the cases where a conflict exist in regard to the relationship and the fiduciary should not be to make profit. It can be illustrated further but looking to the limited issue involved in the present case and as there is no allegation against the respondents for putting the money with the employees against any of the principle laid down by the Supreme Court [2015 (12) TMI 1775 - SUPREME COURT] RBI Vs. Jayanti Lal N. Mistry the elaborate discussion is not made however, this order would apply in the case where a person stand in the fiduciary capacity towards others simpliciter.
As statement of the witnesses have been analyzed by the Adjudicating Authority at length and for that even the statements have even been quoted. The fact remains that the alleged benamidar did not claim right and ownership on the property and at the same time alleged beneficial owner did not disown the cash found with the alleged benamidar rather claimed it to be their. The Income Tax Assessment was made adding the amount in the income of the beneficial owners which obviously was not shown in the books of accounts and therefore only the addition was made in the Income Tax Assessment. This fact also supports the respondent.
........
|
9911796707
