TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (9) TMI 719
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....06.02.2017 one Bikky Kumar Singh was apprehended 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 se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....988. The provision aforesaid mandates that no order under sub 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....,000/- per month. Shri Anil/Rahul was frequent visitor of the shop. He gave Rs. 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 o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-1's statement was also recorded under Section 19(1)(b) of PBPT Act, which is also reproduced 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 i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....source of funds and also denial of any cash transaction with Bikky Kumar Singh leaves no option with the 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....if any, to the notice issued under sub-section (1); (b) making or causing to be made such inquiries and calling for such reports or evidence as it deems fit; and (c) taking into 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 provisionall....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ice to Bikky Kumar Singh with a copy to the appellant in the month of April 2018 and the order was passed within one year from the date of receipt of the reference. In fact, from the end of the month of the receipt of the reference, the impugned order was passed within one year. Thus, the third issue raised by the appellant is also not made out though was not even pleaded in the appeal. 24. The next question raised by the appellant was is in reference to section 24(2) of the Act of 1988. It is submitted that show cause notice was not issued in the name of the appellant, rather it was issued to one Bikky Kumar Singh. To appreciate, it would be gainful to refer section 24(2) and is quoted thus:- 24. Notice and attachment of property involved in benami transaction - (2) Where a notice under sub-section (1) specifies any property as being held by a benamidar referred to in that sub-section, a copy of the notice shall also be issued to the beneficial owner if his identity is known. 25. The provision quoted above does not mandate issuance of notice in the name of beneficial owner rather what is required is a copy of the notice to the beneficial owner. In the insta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....‰à¤°à¥à¤«à¤¼ मामा जिसका मोबाइल नंबर 9572447611 से पà¥à¤°à¤¾à¤ªà¥à¤¤ किया था और यह पैसा मेरा नहीं है। पà¥à¤°à¤¶à¥à¤¨ :- हमें मिली जानकारी के अनà¥à¤¸à¤¾à¤° 6 फ़रवरी 2017 के दिन आपको रेलवे पà¥à¤²à¤¿à¤¸, नई दिलà¥à¤²à¥€ सà¥à¤Ÿà¥‡à¤¶à¤¨ दà¥à¤µà¤¾à¤°à¤¾ लगà¤à¤— 3 करोड़ रà¥à¤ªà¤¯à¥‡ के साथ पकड़ा गया था | कृपया इस विषय में संकà¥....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....¬à¤¤à¤¾à¤ कि यह पैसा किस वà¥à¤¯à¤•à¥à¤¤à¤¿ का था और आपको कैसे पà¥à¤°à¤¾à¤ªà¥à¤¤ हà¥à¤† तथा किस निरà¥à¤¦à¥‡à¤¶ के साथ पà¥à¤°à¤¾à¤ªà¥à¤¤ हà¥à¤† ? उतà¥à¤¤à¤° :- जैसा कि मैंने पà¥à¤°à¤¶à¥à¤¨ न० 4 में बताया कि मà¥à¤à¥‡ यह पैसा शà¥à¤°à¥€ राहà¥à¤² शाह से पà¥à¤°à¤¾à¤ªà¥à¤¤ हà¥à¤† था | शà¥à¤°à¥€ राहà¥à¤² शाह ने मà¥à¤à¥‡ फ़ोन Document 2 करके हावड़ा में कटà....