TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (4) TMI 777
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....26.07.2019 (Impugned Order) in Reference No.969/2018. The Appellant Shri Ravindra Kumar is alleged to be Beneficial Owner and Shri Praveen Kumar Gupta, Proprietor M/s Sagar Enterprises, Delhi and Ms. Supriya, Proprietor M/s KS Traders, Gurgaon/New Delhi are alleged to be Benamidar No.1 and Benamidar No.2 respectively. The amount of Rs.1,12,00,000/- credited by M/s KS Traders on 12.11.2016 in the bank account of M/s RK Emporium at Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., Ludhiana was provisionally attached on 11.04.2018. The Ld. Adjudicating Authority has upheld the Provisional Attachment vide the Impugned Order which is under challenge in the Appeal before us. 2. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant stated that on 12.11.2016 Rs.51,45,900/- were transferred by M....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppellant submitted details of the Income Tax Returns filed by the Appellant from the Assessment Year 2013-2014 to 2017-2018 reflecting increasing income ranging from Rs.24,98,400/- to Rs.1,30,48,940/- over five-year period. Ld. Counsel also submitted the details of eight sale invoices of M/s RK Emporium issued to M/s KS Traders on dates beginning from 26.12.2016 to 10.01.2017. For each of these eight sale invoices, corresponding bilties (GR No.) along with vehicle No. of Rammat Transport Corporation has been provided. Furthermore, corresponding to the sale invoice the related purchase invoice No. with date and amount issued by M/s Bhandari Hosiery Ltd., Shree Radheshyam Syl-Fab P. Ltd., and Shiv Shakti Weavtex Pvt. Ltd. have been furnished....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ignments were sent beginning from 26.12.2016 to 11.01.2017. Ld. Counsel further argued that the two parties had no other transaction either before these eight transactions nor after these transactions. 6. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent argued that while payments were made to M/s Rammat Transport vide bank account, it is evident that no further payment has been made to any truck owner. Shri Tarvinder Singh, Proprietor M/s Rammat Transport Corporation admitted that he was drawing a salary of Rs.13000/- from M/s DS Transport. No Income Tax Return was filed for the Financial Year 2016-2017 and even for previous years', business income was Rs.60000/- to Rs.1.5 lakhs. Ld. Counsel stated that Shri Tarvinder Singh had admitted that the builty book....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t Transport Corporation have also been perused which are part of the record. The copies of the Ledger Account of the Appellant with respect to M/s KS Traders, M/s Bhandari Hosiery and M/s Rammat Transport Corporation have also been furnished. In one of the invoices of M/s RK Emporium viz bill no.20568 dated 27.12.2016 made for sale of knitted cloth to M/s KS Traders bearing GR No.406 dated 28.12.2016 of Rammat Transport Corporation, we found that the PAN No. FQRPS1663B of M/s KS Traders is also mentioned. On enquiry from both the sides, report dated 28.02.2025 has been submitted by the Respondent that the PAN belongs to Supriya, Proprietor of M/s KS Traders, even though it is an entity which is a non-filer. However, there is no dispute that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....,12,00,000/- is transferred by M/s Sagar Enterprises and M/s K S Traders in the account of M/s R K Emporium (alleged Beneficial Owner) in Kotak Mahindra Bank, Ludhiana. As per the investigation it was found that these companies are shell companies and have no business of their own and this money was transferred in the account of M/s R K Emporium. Hence, considering this as the case of benami transaction u/s 2(9)(A) of PBPT Act, notice u/s 24(1) was issued to both the benamidars Sh. Praveen Kumar Gupta and Ms. Supriya and copy was given to Beneficial Owner u/s 24(2). Simultaneously IO also issued order u/s 24(3) provisionally attaching the said property for a period of 90 days. In response to the notice none of the benamidars attended before....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. 1,12,00,000/- deposited in cash through these shell companies in respect of accounts of Beneficial Owner is a sham transaction and comes in the category of benami transaction as per the provisions of PBPT Act. Hence, order u/s 24(4)(a)(i) was issued by the Initiating Officer. Both the benamidars failed to appear before the Adjudicating Authority and also did not file any reply despite being served intimation of hearing twice. Hence, it can be safely presumed that they have nothing to do in the matter and provisional attachment may be treated as confirmed." 11. We observe that the evidence for confirmation of the Provisional Attachment Order has not been specified in the Impugned Order. While the investigation has been referred, the e....