2025 (11) TMI 1577 - AT - Benami Property

Benami cash deposits in dummy accounts upheld; ignorance plea rejected; later income-tax surrender under s.148 no defence

Smt. Mina Kiranbhai Shah Versus The Initiating Officer, BPU, Ahmedabad

AT upheld the finding of benami transaction involving cash deposits in dummy bank accounts with no genuine business activity. The appellant's plea of ... Benami transaction - Cash deposited in the dummy bank accounts - managed and controlled by two groups - transferred back to beneficial owner - no business activities carried out in the firm or bank account - plea of ignorance of the transaction - appellant pleaded ignorance about the transaction as her bank account was managed by her husband. It was even in her statement u/s 131 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 but ignorance would not absolve the appellant from the benami transaction - HELD THAT:- There is no document to show sale transaction to receive a hefty amount in advance or otherwise. In fact, no Agreement to Sell has been placed on record. The fact further remains that amount aforesaid was transferred from the account of benamidar M/s Shiv Traders with whom the appellant has not shown any transaction so as to justify the receipt of the amount. In fact, using the banking channel, the group of persons got involved to convert demonetized money by the process of bank. The appellant persuaded herself or through husband to get demonetized money to be monetized and entered into the benami transaction under which the property was first transferred to benamidar through the persons and thereupon received back by the beneficial owner as future benefit. Thus, we do not find any error in the impugned order holding a case of benami transaction. Appellant has referred to the action of the Income Tax Department u/s 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in ignorance of the fact that the subsequent assessment or surrender of money showing it to be undisclosed income before the Income Tax Authorities would not nullify a benami transaction took place prior in time otherwise in all such cases, it would be easy for everyone to frustrate the proceedings of benami transaction by disclosing the amount to be undisclosed income and get assessment of the amount and thereupon pay the tax. The action of the assessment is quite different and distinct then the action under the Act of 1988 initiated prior in time, thus, subsequent assessment by the Income Tax Department would not nullify a benami transaction under the Act of 1988. We do not find any merit in the appeal and accordingly it fails and is dismissed. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1.1 Whether the cash amount of Rs. 71,50,000 credited to the appellant's bank account, originating from the bank account of M/s Shiv Traders, constituted 'benami property' and the transaction a 'benami transaction' under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988. 1.2 Whether the appellant's plea of ignorance of the transaction, on the ground that her husband was managing her financial affairs, absolved her from the consequences of a benami transaction carried out through her bank account. 1.3 Whether assessment proceedings and treatment of the impugned amount as income under the Income-tax Act, 1961, including action under Section 148, nullified or barred proceedings and attachment under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Characterisation of the transaction and amount as benami under the Act of 1988 Legal framework (as discussed): The Tribunal proceeded on the scheme of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, concerning 'benami transaction', 'benamidar', and 'beneficial owner', and the competence of the Adjudicating Authority to confirm a Provisional Attachment Order in respect of benami property. Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal noted that during a survey under Section 133A of the Income-tax Act at the relevant bank branch, dummy bank accounts were found to be managed and controlled by two groups. Statements under Section 131 of the Income-tax Act were recorded from persons who admitted that (i) they had deposited large amounts of cash (old high denomination notes) into various bank accounts including that of M/s Shiv Traders, (ii) the cash did not belong to them or the account holders, (iii) the cash was not out of any business activity, and (iv) cash was received from middlemen/beneficiaries and, after deposit, was routed back to such beneficiaries through RTGS/NEFT. It was found that Rs. 8.80 crore was deposited in the bank account of M/s Shiv Traders, a proprietorship concern with no actual business activity; the proprietor admitted that the account was opened and operated at the instance of another person, in return for a fixed monthly cash consideration, and that the account was fully controlled by that person. Those involved further admitted that they had deposited Rs. 32.82 crore in various benami accounts, including Rs. 8.80 crore in the account of M/s Shiv Traders, and that Rs. 71,50,000 out of that was transferred to the appellant's account. On these findings, the Tribunal held that M/s Shiv Traders' account functioned as a benami bank account used to launder demonetized currency, the cash being first deposited in the account of a benamidar and thereafter transferred to the beneficial owners, thereby securing a future benefit for them. Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the chain of transactions, including the transfer of Rs. 71,50,000 to the appellant's bank account from the bank account of M/s Shiv Traders, constituted a benami transaction, and that the amount stood rightly treated and attached as benami property under the Act of 1988. The confirmation of the Provisional Attachment Order by the Adjudicating Authority was upheld. Issue 2: Effect of the appellant's claimed ignorance and reliance on her husband's management of the account Interpretation and reasoning: The appellant contended that she was unaware of the transaction, as her husband handled all financial dealings and had informed her that the money represented consideration from a house sale that later did not materialise. The Tribunal noted that, in her statement under Section 131 of the Income-tax Act, the appellant did not claim absolute ignorance of the receipt of money; she acknowledged that she was told it was linked to a property transaction. The Tribunal observed that (i) no documentary evidence, including any Agreement to Sell, had been produced to substantiate a real estate transaction justifying receipt of Rs. 71,50,000 as advance or otherwise; (ii) there was no explanation or documentation evidencing any legitimate transaction between the appellant and M/s Shiv Traders to justify receipt of funds from that firm; and (iii) the money was part of the larger admitted scheme of depositing demonetized cash into benami accounts and routing it back to beneficiaries. On these facts, the Tribunal held that mere assertion of ignorance, or that the husband managed the bank account, could not exonerate the appellant from the consequences of a benami transaction taking place through her account, particularly when the funds were integrally linked to an admitted benami arrangement. Conclusions: The Tribunal held that the appellant's plea of ignorance and reliance on her husband's handling of the account did not absolve her from involvement in the benami transaction, and did not displace the finding that the amount credited to her account was benami property. Issue 3: Effect of Income-tax assessment proceedings, including Section 148 action, on benami proceedings Legal framework (as discussed): The Tribunal considered the relationship between proceedings under the Income-tax Act, 1961 (including reassessment under Section 148 and assessment of undisclosed income) and proceedings under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988. It emphasised that these are distinct statutory regimes and actions. Interpretation and reasoning: The appellant argued that since the amount in question had been subjected to assessment under the Income-tax Act, 1961, pursuant to proceedings under Section 148, the same amount could not form the basis of proceedings or attachment under the Act of 1988. The Tribunal rejected this contention, holding that (i) assessment or surrender of the amount as undisclosed income before the Income Tax Authorities does not nullify or efface a benami transaction that had already taken place; (ii) the action of assessment under the Income-tax Act is distinct and separate from proceedings initiated under the Act of 1988; and (iii) accepting the appellant's argument would enable persons to frustrate and defeat benami proceedings simply by subsequently disclosing the amount as undisclosed income, getting it assessed, and paying tax, thereby undermining the statutory purpose of the Act of 1988. The benami proceedings in the present case were noted as having been initiated prior in time to the subsequent assessment. Conclusions: The Tribunal held that assessment of the impugned amount as income under the Income-tax Act, including action under Section 148, neither barred nor nullified benami proceedings and attachment under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988. The benami attachment and the adjudicating order remained valid notwithstanding the income-tax treatment of the amount.