Appellate Tribunal confirms chit funds acquired through benami transactions under Section 132(4) Income Tax Act

The Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA upheld the Adjudicating Authority's finding that chit funds and assets were acquired through benami transactions. The appellant's statements recorded under Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act during search proceedings, admitting that assets were purchased in his name at another person's instance, were held admissible in revenue proceedings. The Tribunal distinguished criminal proceedings from revenue proceedings, noting that sworn statements can be relied upon for attachment and penalty proceedings without requiring separate inquiry. The appellant failed to substantiate claimed agricultural and poultry income sources, and maturity amounts were transferred to the beneficial owner's firm, constituting clinching evidence of benami transactions.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Legality of relying on sworn statements under Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act in proceedings under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 (PBPT Act).
2. Whether the properties and assets in question were acquired through benami transactions.
3. Adequacy of evidence provided by the appellant to prove legitimate sources of income for acquiring the properties.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of Relying on Sworn Statements:

The primary legal contention raised by the appellant was the reliance on sworn statements recorded under Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act during the proceedings under the PBPT Act. The appellant argued that such statements should only be used within the confines of the Income Tax Act and not in other statutory proceedings. The Tribunal, however, rejected this argument, citing precedents from the Andhra Pradesh High Court and the Bombay High Court, which allowed the use of sworn statements in proceedings under different statutes if they pertain to the same transaction. The Tribunal emphasized that these statements are judicial in nature and can be used against the person making them, thus validating their use in the present proceedings under the PBPT Act.

2. Benami Transactions:

The Tribunal examined the properties in question, which included vehicles, land, and chit funds, all allegedly acquired through benami transactions. The appellant had initially admitted in the sworn statement that these assets were purchased by another individual, Rajesh of M.R. Traders, in his name. Despite later retraction, the Tribunal found that the statements, corroborated by other evidence, were sufficient to establish the benami nature of the transactions. The Tribunal noted that the maturity amounts from the chit funds were transferred to business concerns associated with Rajesh, further substantiating the benami claim.

3. Evidence of Legitimate Income Sources:

The appellant attempted to prove legitimate income sources through agricultural activities and poultry farming, supported by certificates from village officers and other documents. However, the Tribunal found these documents insufficient. The certificates were not based on revenue records and lacked credibility. The appellant's bank transactions showed significant amounts deposited from entities linked to Rajesh, rather than from agricultural or poultry income. The Tribunal also noted discrepancies in the appellant's financial statements and the absence of income tax returns, despite having an income above the taxable limit. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant failed to provide credible evidence to substantiate the claimed income sources, reinforcing the benami transaction findings.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals, affirming the Adjudicating Authority's order that the assets in question were acquired through benami transactions, and the reliance on sworn statements was legally permissible. The appellant's failure to provide adequate evidence of legitimate income sources further supported the Tribunal's decision.

---