TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (2) TMI 323
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Unit-2, New Delhi ("Appellant") under Section 46 of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 ("PBPTA") challenging Order dated 25.03.2019 ("Impugned Order") of the Ld. Adjudicating Authority in Reference No R-592/2018. Shri Ramesh Chanda Sharma ("Benamidar") is the Respondent No. 1 and Shri Ravindra Kumar, Proprietor, M/s R K Emporium ("Beneficial Owner") is the Respondent No. 2 before us. 2. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant has summarised that the present appeal has been preferred to challenge the Impugned Order dated 25.03.2019, whereby, the Ld. Adjudicating Authority had not confirmed the Provisional Attachment Order ("PAO") dated 27.02.2018. The PAO attached an amount of Rs. 80,00,000/- which formed part of the total dep....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on of Rs. 1000/- and Rs. 500/-. Ld. Counsel further argued that based on the investigations conducted by the Enforcement Directorate under the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 ("PMLA"), it emerged that the source of the said sum of Rs. 80,00,000/- was M/s Yashwini Exports, which is a shell entity maintained by one Shri Yogesh Mittal. 5. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant argued that the copies of bilties cannot be relied upon to prove the contentions of the Respondent(s) that they were engaged in a legitimate and genuine transaction for sale and purchase of goods. The Respondent(s) submitted copies of bilties and claimed that the goods were transported by M/s Rammat Transport Corporation, Delhi. Ld. Counsel for the Appe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eived in the accounts maintained by Shri Ramesh Chand Sharma, in the name and style of M/s R K International and M/s Virgo International on 08.11.2016 and subsequently transferred on 12.11.2016 to the bank account of M/s R K Emporium (Proprietorship concern of Shri Ravindra Kumar) was not a Benami Property within the import of Section 2(8) of the PBPTA. 9. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent argued that the Respondent No. 2, Shri Ravindra Kumar, Proprietor, M/s R K emporium was engaged in legitimate transactions with the alleged Benamidar to purchase and sell goods. Ld. Counsel argued that based on the documentary evidences submitted, it is evident that the transactions undertaken by the Respondents were in the regular course of business. 10. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re, Ld. Counsel pleaded to dismiss the present appeal and confirm the Impugned Order. 13. We have considered the rival submissions and the material on record. Based on the pleadings, we observe that the main issue for consideration before us, is that, whether the Beneficial Owner was engaged in Benami Transaction(s) within the import of Section 2(9) of the PBPTA. 14. Based on the documents and pleadings raised before us, we note that no evidence has been placed before us as to show that the amounts which were transferred by M/s Yashawini Exports on 08.11.2016 in the accounts maintained by Shri Ramesh Chand Sharma, in the name and style of M/s R K International and M/s Virgo International, were in fact infused/deposited into the bank accoun....