TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>SAFEMA Tribunal upholds provisional attachment of Rs.67 lakh cash seized as benami property after CCTV contradicts fabricated sales bills</h1> The Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA dismissed an appeal challenging provisional attachment of cash seized as benami property. The Tribunal upheld the ... Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act - Provisional Attachment Order - characterization of cash seized from the appellant as benami property - HELD THAT:- Adjudicating Authority found that in the CCTV footage taken by the DDIT, Nagpur, it was revealed that only few customers came at the shop of Shri Pugliya. It was sufficient to contradict the entries in the bill book which was created as an afterthought otherwise during the business hours from 10.00AM to 8.00 PM the appellant could not make 13 bills only for the reason of counting the cash could not be accepted. We do not find any illegality in the finding to the facts recorded by the Adjudicating Authority, rather, no argument could be made to contradict the finding. Also found that the appellant, Shri Anand Navalchand Pugliya did not purchase the jewellery any time from Chennai, rather, it used to be from different place like Mumbai etc. but it was never purchased from Chennai. The statements made by the appellants u/s 19(1) of the PBPT Act were admissible. It could not be clarified as to why for the first time gold was to be purchased from Chennai. It was also noted that no documentary proof was given to hold that the appellant, Shri Purnanand Ramchandra Mishra was an employee of Shri Anand Navalchand Pugliya so as to seek the benefit of fiduciary capacity. The theory of purchase of gold in cash for a sum of Rs.67,00,000/- is opposed to the Income Tax laws and is not even endorsed by bullion practice in Chennai and otherwise GST payments etc. was only to cover the story taken by the appellant. The appellant, Shri Anand Navalchand Pugliya failed to show ownership of the amount and therefore he was not taken to be beneficial owner, rather, the case was taken u/s 19(1)(D) of the PBPT Act, 1988 as amended by the Act of 2016. The theory has been propounded by the appellant about cash transaction in Nagpur as it is dependent on political and agriculture activities and therefore everyone prefer to pay in cash. It could not be accepted and if it was paid in cash, the bills matching to the amount was required to be shown. The appellant, benamidar, could not otherwise show the source to acquire the amount, rather, he pleaded against his initial statement u/s 131 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 stating that the cash belongs to him and subsequently affidavit was filed conflicting the statement made earlier. CCTV footage could not have been ignored by the Adjudicating Authority to find out whether the appellant, Shri Anand Navalchand Pugliya was having sufficient source to endorse Rs.67,50,000/- to appellant, Shri Purnanand Ramchandra Mishra. It was found that the GST returns were filed as an afterthought, otherwise, the bills produced before the Authority were fabricated. It was also found that while on the relevant date 13 sales bill alleged to have been made, however, from 01.02.2019 to 16.02.2019, 59 cash sales were shown i.e. in a period of 16 days while on one particular day it is alleged to be 13 sales has not been accepted by the Adjudicating Authority, which we do not find to be erroneous to cause interference by this Tribunal. Appeal dismissed. The core legal questions considered by the Appellate Tribunal (AT) under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 (PBPT Act), as amended in 2016, revolve around the characterization of cash seized from the appellant as benami property or held in a fiduciary capacity. The issues include:1. Whether the seized cash amounting to Rs. 67,50,000/- found in possession of the appellant constitutes benami property under Section 2(9)(D) of the PBPT Act.2. Whether the appellant, Shri Purnanand Ramchandra Mishra, was merely holding the cash in fiduciary capacity as a commission agent or employee of Shri Anand Navalchand Pugliya, the alleged real owner.3. Whether the appellant, Shri Anand Navalchand Pugliya, could establish ownership of the cash and disclose a legitimate source of acquisition, thereby negating the benami transaction claim.4. The evidentiary value of statements recorded under Section 19(1) of the PBPT Act and Section 131 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, including affidavits and CCTV footage, in determining ownership and the nature of the transaction.5. The validity of the Adjudicating Authority's findings regarding the credibility of documentary evidence such as sale bills, GST returns, and the business practices of the appellant in relation to the seized cash.Issue 1: Characterization of the seized cash as benami property under Section 2(9)(D) of the PBPT ActThe PBPT Act defines benami property as property held by one person but the consideration for which is paid by another. The Adjudicating Authority, and subsequently the Tribunal, examined whether the cash found with the appellant was held on behalf of the alleged real owner or was the appellant's own property.The appellant initially claimed ownership of the cash under Section 131 of the Income Tax Act but failed to disclose its source. Subsequently, he filed an affidavit stating that the cash belonged to Shri Anand Navalchand Pugliya and was being carried to purchase gold in Chennai. The Tribunal noted that despite this disclosure, the Adjudicating Authority did not accept the claim of ownership by Shri Anand Navalchand Pugliya due to lack of credible evidence supporting the source of funds and the nature of the transaction.The Court relied on the definition of benami transaction under the PBPT Act and found that the appellant failed to establish that the cash was held in fiduciary capacity or that the real owner had a legitimate source of funds. The evidence indicated that the cash was effectively benami property.Issue 2: Whether the appellant was holding the cash in fiduciary capacity as a commission agent or employeeThe appellant contended that he was a commission agent working on behalf of Shri Anand Navalchand Pugliya, who was engaged in wholesale and retail bullion and jewellery business. It was argued that the cash was delivered to the appellant for the purpose of purchasing gold, implying a fiduciary relationship rather than a benami transaction.The Tribunal examined the statements recorded under Section 19(1) of the PBPT Act, where the appellant admitted to acting as a commission agent without documentary proof of employment or fiduciary relationship. The Adjudicating Authority found no documentary evidence to substantiate the claim of employment or fiduciary capacity.Moreover, the Tribunal noted that the appellant's father had worked for Shri Anand Navalchand Pugliya, but no formal employment relationship was established for the appellant himself. The lack of documentary proof and the contradictions in the appellant's statements undermined the fiduciary capacity claim.Issue 3: Ownership and source of acquisition of the cash by Shri Anand Navalchand PugliyaThe appellant, Shri Anand Navalchand Pugliya, claimed ownership of the cash and stated it was derived from the sale of jewellery. He produced 13 bills of sale allegedly corresponding to the cash amount but admitted that bills could not be issued timely due to counting the cash. The Adjudicating Authority scrutinized this claim against CCTV footage and business records.The CCTV footage revealed minimal customer visits to the shop during business hours, contradicting the claim of multiple sales. The Adjudicating Authority concluded that the sale bills were fabricated after the fact to justify the cash amount. Further, the appellant failed to demonstrate any purchase of gold from Chennai, contradicting the stated purpose of the cash.The Tribunal upheld these findings, emphasizing that the appellant's explanation was inconsistent with business practices, GST compliance, and the evidence on record. The failure to establish a legitimate source of funds led to the conclusion that Shri Anand Navalchand Pugliya was not the beneficial owner.Issue 4: Admissibility and weight of statements and other evidenceThe statements recorded under Section 19(1) of the PBPT Act and Section 131 of the Income Tax Act were considered admissible and crucial in determining the facts. The Tribunal relied on these statements to assess the credibility of the appellants' claims.The affidavit filed by the appellant disclosing the cash as belonging to Shri Anand Navalchand Pugliya was weighed against the initial statement claiming ownership by the appellant himself. The conflicting statements weakened the appellants' position.The CCTV footage was treated as objective evidence contradicting the appellants' narrative about business transactions. The Tribunal found no error in the Adjudicating Authority's reliance on this evidence to discredit the appellants' claims.Issue 5: Validity of documentary evidence such as sale bills and GST returnsThe Adjudicating Authority found the sale bills produced by Shri Anand Navalchand Pugliya to be fabricated and the GST returns filed as an afterthought. The Tribunal concurred with this assessment, noting the implausibility of generating 13 sales bills on a single day amid limited customer footfall as captured on CCTV.The absence of corroborative evidence for the cash transaction and the failure to establish standard business practices consistent with the claimed transactions led to rejection of the documentary evidence.The Tribunal concluded that the seized cash was benami property held by the appellant without a legitimate beneficial owner. The appellant failed to prove a fiduciary relationship or disclose a credible source of funds. The Adjudicating Authority's confirmation of the Provisional Attachment Order and reference was upheld.Significant holdings include the following verbatim reasoning:'The CCTV footage taken by the DDIT, Nagpur, revealed that only few customers came at the shop of Shri Pugliya. It was sufficient to contradict the entries in the bill book which was created as an afterthought otherwise during the business hours from 10.00AM to 8.00 PM the appellant could not make 13 bills only for the reason of counting the cash amount could not be accepted.''The theory of purchase of gold in cash for a sum of Rs.67,00,000/- is opposed to the Income Tax laws and is not even endorsed by bullion practice in Chennai and otherwise GST payments etc. was only to cover the story taken by the appellant.''The appellant, Shri Anand Navalchand Pugliya failed to show ownership of the amount and therefore he was not taken to be beneficial owner, rather, the case was taken under Section 19(1)(D) of the PBPT Act.''The appellant, benamidar, could not otherwise show the source to acquire the amount, rather, he pleaded against his initial statement under Section 131 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 stating that the cash belongs to him and subsequently affidavit was filed conflicting the statement made earlier.'The core principles established are:- Mere disclosure of ownership without credible evidence of source and legitimate business transactions is insufficient to negate a benami transaction under the PBPT Act.- Statements recorded under Sections 19(1) of the PBPT Act and 131 of the Income Tax Act are admissible and critical in determining ownership and nature of property.- Objective evidence such as CCTV footage and business records can be relied upon to test the veracity of claims regarding ownership and source of funds.- Fabrication of documentary evidence and inconsistent statements undermine claims of beneficial ownership or fiduciary capacity.- The burden lies on the alleged beneficial owner to establish legitimate source and ownership to avoid classification of property as benami.Final determinations on each issue:1. The seized cash is benami property under Section 2(9)(D) of the PBPT Act.2. The appellant was not holding the cash in fiduciary capacity as a commission agent or employee.3. The alleged beneficial owner failed to establish ownership and legitimate source of funds.4. Statements and evidence relied upon by the Adjudicating Authority were properly admitted and considered.5. Documentary evidence produced was fabricated and insufficient to support the appellants' claims.Accordingly, the appeals were dismissed and the Provisional Attachment Order confirmed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
