9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 694X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . ORDER This Order disposes of the Appeal No. FPA-PBPT-712/LKW/2019 filed by the Appellant, Shri Pradeep Kumar Agarwal against the Order dated 24.04.2019 (Impugned Order), under Section 26 (3) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Act, 1988 (PBPTA) passed by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority in Reference No. R-752/2018. Ld. Adjudicating Authority has confirmed the Order dated 26.03.2018 passed by the Initiating Officer (IO) under Section 24 (4) (b) (i) of PBPTA and allowed the Reference No. R- 752/2018. The Initiating Officer (IO) had provisionally attached, vide the aforementioned Order dated 26.03.2018, the following properties to the extent of the amount of Rs. 1 Crore.: - S. No. Purchaser/Owner Address of the Property 1. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd has the required registration. He contended that besides the Appellant, Shri Anoop Kumar Agrawal is the partner of the firm. The delivery of gold was made to Shri Mahendra Pal Malhotra after he had given signed copy of the identification document of Smt. Suman Dua. The firm had been regularly doing transactions of gold of high value hence the transaction of Rs. 1 Crore cannot be regarded as strange. Neither the firm nor its partners can be held responsible for any unlawful actions perpetrated by unrelated individuals or third parties with undisclosed motives that were unknown to the appellant. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant highlighted certain inconsistencies in the statements tendered by Smt. Suman Dua before the Department. He contended ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l Bank (PNB). She categorically stated that sum of Rs. 1 crore was fraudulently deposited in her bank account by Sh. Mahendra Pal Malhotra (i.e. friend and partner of the Appellant herein) who is close friend of her employer Sh. Bablu Kakkar (Shiv Kumar Kakkar). Ld. Counsel stated that the transaction occurred within a few days of the demonetization announced on 8th November 2016. He further contended that there are contradictions between the statements of Shri Mahendra Pal Malhotra and the Appellant. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent expressed surprise that how Rs. 1 Crore could be credited without having transferred the possession of gold to Smt. Dua. He claimed that Shri Mahendra Pal Malhotra is also a partner of the Appellant in another pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hose to deposit Rs. 1 Crore in Rajendra Nagar Branch of Punjab National Bank, Bareilly so as to credit her aforementioned bank account number existing in Ekta Nagar Branch. The Chief Manager of the bank branch at Rajendra Nagar while tendering his statement has as much admitted that Smt. Suman Dua herself deposited the cash of Rs. 1 Crore in his branch to credit her account in Ekta Nagar branch, Bareilly. It is also more surprising that the Chief Manager has failed to give any explanation as to the reason for allowing such transaction in cash whereby account is credited of different branch without even seeking clarification about the source of cash amount of Rs. 1 Crore by the depositor Smt. Suman Dua who was not even an account holder in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s 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. The 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 pers ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. The 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. 10. In view of the aforementioned discussions and analysis we do not find any reason to intervene with the impugned order and therefore dismiss the Appeal as devoid of merit. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
