Just a moment...

Report
FeedbackReport
Bars
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2024 (9) TMI 719

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d by GRP at New Delhi Railway with cash currency of around Rs. 3 crores. The team of investigation Wing of Income Tax Department immediately reached to GRP Office, New Delhi and on the same date, the authorized officer issued summons under section 131(1A) of the Income Tax Act to Bikky Kumar Singh in the detention of GRP, New Delhi. The preliminary statement of Bikky Kumar Singh was recorded on the same date followed by search warrant under section 132 of Income Tax Act executed in the name of Bikky Kumar Singh and his statement were recorded under section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. On 07.02.2017 cash of Rs. 2,99,90,000/- was seized and deposited in the PD account of Income Tax, New Delhi. On 08.12.2017, a reference letter was received by the Initiating Officer from AD Income Tax, Investigation Unit, New Delhi. In pursuance to it, a show cause notice was issued to Bikky Kumar Singh on 24(1) of the Act of 1988. The amount recovered from Bikky Kumar Singh was provisionally attached for a period of 90 days on 29.12.2017. 5. The statement of Bikky Kumar Singh was then recorded by the Initiating Officer, New Delhi under section 19(1)(b) of the Act of 1988. The statements w....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....section (3) of section 26 would be passed by the Adjudicating Authority after expiry 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 submitted that the order of reference is dated 26/3/2018 while the impugned order was passed on 25.04.2019. It was beyond the period of one year and thus on the aforesaid ground also, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 11. It is further argued that despite a mandate of section 24(2) of the Act of 1988 for issuance of show cause notice to the beneficial owner, it was not issued in his name. The appellant was not given show cause notice rather it was given to Bikky Kumar Singh. A copy of the notice of Bikky Kumar Singh could not have been in compliance to section 24(2) of the Act of 1988. In fact, the appellant was not given show cause notice and thereby the initiation of the proceedings against him and the impugned order are in violation of section 24(2) of the Act of 1988. The appellant had specifically brought this fact to the notice of the respondents. However, a cognizance to the aforesaid objection was not taken, rather in ignorance of the o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s. 3 crore to deliver it to Mr Pawan in Delhi. Since, Bikky Kumar Singh was caught by the police, Mr Pawan denied that amount sent by the appellant belongs to him. In the background aforesaid, the matter was initiated and the first issue raised by the appellant in regard to the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority is that without any evidence and material to prove the case against the appellant, impugned order has been passed. The argument aforesaid was contested by the respondent. A specific reference to the statement recorded under section 132(4) was given which has otherwise been referred in the impugned order. We have perused the statement of Bikky Kumar Singh and find that he named the appellant for delivery of the currency notes. The mobile number of the appellant was also furnished. Currency notes were to delivered to one Pawan whose mobile number was also disclosed apart from the alternate mobile number. It is with further statement that he called Pawan after arrival at New Delhi Railway Station. However, knowing about that Sh. Bikky Kumar Singh has been apprehended, he disowned the receipt of the currency notes. 18. The statement of Sh. Bikky Kumar Singh was recorde....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....roduced by the 1.0 in the order dt. 22.03.2018 and is reproduced above. It is evident therefrom that in response 5, D-1 has answered that Shri Rahul Shah (Defendant No. 2) meet him on 07.02.2017. D-2 made D-1 to speak to someone on phone and assured him. He is also stated that Shri Rahul Shah give him air ticket for travel to Delhi to Kolkata. From the statement of D-1 and other material it is evident that D-1 was a cash courier for D-2. D-1 has admitted that the cash amount in his possession was given by D-2. It is also evident that several attempts were made to make inquiries with D-2. D-2 however remained evasive, he however filed the reply dt. 30.01.2018 thereby denying that the amount belongs to him and that he never entered into any transaction with D-1. However the evidence in the form of statement of Benamidar Shri Bikky Kumar Singh sounds convincing and acceptable. D-1 has not retracted his statement. At the same time D-2 has not adduced any evidence to demonstrate as to why the statement of D- 1 cannot be relied upon. D-2 has also not shown any reason as to why D-1 wants to falsely implicate 0-2. The conclusion reached by the I.O is, therefore, proper as based on the mate....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he I.O BPU-1 Delhi but to rely on evidence provided by the benamidar Mr. Bikky Kumar Singh. From the statement of Shri Bikky Kumar Singh u/s 19(1)(b) of the PBPT Act, 1988, it appears that the cash amount of Rs. 2,99,90,000/- in denomination of Rs. 2000/- which was found from the possession of Shri Bikky Kumar Singh on 06.02.2017 at New Delhi Railway Station was not his own. As he stated that he was only acted as a cash courier of Shri Rahul Shah. In his statement u/s 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 06.02.2017 and u/s 19(1)(b) of the PBPT Act, 1988 Shri Bikky Kumar Singh has again accepted that he received the cash from Shri Anil/Rahul/Mama with a direction to handover it to Shri Pawan in Delhi. The relevant part of the Statement of Bikky Kumar Singh is quoted hereunder:- 21. The learned counsel for the appellant raised an issue in reference to the statement of Bikky Kumar Singh. It was submitted that first statement under section 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. The learned c....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....account all relevant materials, provide an opportunity of being heard to the person specified as a benamidar therein, the Initiating Officer, and any other person who claims to be the owner of the property, and, thereafter, pass an order- (i) holding the property not to be a benami property and revoking the attachment order; or (ii) holding the property to be a benami property and confirming the attachment order, in all other cases. (4) Where the Adjudicating Authority is satisfied that some part of the properties in respect of which reference has been made to him is benami property, but is not able to specifically identify such part, he shall record a finding to the best of his judgment as to which part of the properties is held benami. (5) Where in the course of proceedings before it, the Adjudicating Authority has reason to believe that a property, other than a property referred to it by the Initiating Officer is benami property, it shall provisionally attach the property and the property shall be deemed to be a property referred to it on the date of receipt of the reference under sub-section (5) of section 24. (6) The Adjudicating Authority may, at any stage of t....