TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (5) TMI 1770
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ndment Act of 2016) dated 18.02.2022 and 28.02.2022, confirming the provisional attachment of agricultural lands and money kept in bank accounts, respectively, under the said Act (hereafter referred to as "PBPT Act") are proposed to be disposed of. Appeals listed at Sl. Nos. 1 to 6 are against the order of the Ld. Adjudicating Authority dated 18.02.2022 confirming the provisional attachment of immovable properties (lands), whereas appeals listed at Sl. Nos. 7 to 18 are against the order dated 28.02.2022 confirming the provisional attachment of moneys kept in the bank accounts of the appellants herein. The details of the properties whose provisional attachment was confirmed in the two orders are as follows: Confirmed vide Order dated 18.02.2022 passed in Reference No. R- 0099 to R-0101, R-0103 to R-0106, R-0116 to R-0118/PBPT/DLI/2021: Sr. No. Reference No. Description of Benami Properties 1 R-0099/PBPT/DLI/2021 1/3rd part of agriculture land, Khasra No. 370, total land 1.2400 hect. (1/3rd part is 0.4133 hect.) situated at village Ghatajaldhari, Bhanpurkalan Tehsil Jamwaramgarh, Jaipur, purchased from Shri Ramshay S/o Shri Sewa in the name of Shri Hemraj Dhobi S/o Shri Kana v....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Jaipur, purchased from Shri Samir Khan S/o Shri Sagiruddin (the power of attorney holder on behalf of Shri Nanagram Dholi S/o Shri Goopal Lal Dholi) in the name of Shri Banwari Lal Bairwa S/o Shri Chunni Lal Bairwa vide sale deed no. 201801424001123 dated 06.04.2018 8 R-0116/PBPT/DLI/2021 1/10th part of Khasra No. 220-land admeasuring 0.0950 Hect. i.e. 1/10th of 1.9500 ht of total land) and 1/6th part of Khasra nos. 166, 217 and 218, land admeasuring 0.8166 hect. i.e. 1/6th part of total land 4.9000 hect. situated at village Ghatajaldhari, Basna, Tehsil Jamwaramgarh, Jaipur purchased from Shri Dalip S/o Shri Jaila and Smt. Maya W/o Shri Babulal, in the name of Smt. Kanta Devi W/o Shri Ganesh Lal vide sale deed no. 201701424001174 dated 11.04.2017 9. R-0117/PBPT/DLI/2021 Agriculture land, (Khasra No. 369- total land-0.3100 Hect.) situated at village Ghatajaldhari, Basna, Tehsil Jamwaramgarh, Jaipur purchased from Shri Ganesh Lal S/o Shri Kanaram in the name of Shri Udai S/o Shri Mahaveer vide sale deed no. 201701424001176 dated 11.04.2017 10 R-0118/PBPT/DLI/2021 1340/3360 part of agriculture land of (Khasra No. 375, admeasuring 0.3360 Hect. In total) i.e. 1340/3360 part of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Smt. Sunita Bairwa 10 R-0114/PBPT/DLI/2021 The money kept in the bank account (on or after 01.11.2016) number 0020311000006275 maintained with Malviya Urban Co-operative Bank, Jaipur held in the name of Smt. Pooja Bairwa 11 R-0114/PBPT/DLI/2021 The money kept in the bank account (on or after 01.11.2016) number 002031000001724 maintained with Malviya Urban Co-operative Bank, Jaipur held in the name of Shri Udai Garwa 2. The relevant facts briefly are that a search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("I-T Act") was conducted on 22.10.2019 against the 'Ravi Surya Group' headed by Shri Ravindra Pratap Singh Parihar who was allegedly involved in the purchase and sale of land, plots etc. in cash, and had allegedly generated huge unaccounted income from his real estate/construction business. During the search operations, voluminous documents and digital data (in 'Tally' package) relating to purchase of lands in the names of various persons were found and seized from various residential and business premises connected with Shri Parihar. In addition, a large volume of documents in the form of sale deeds, agreements and powers of attorney relating to purchase of la....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....emraj Dhobi Rs. 1,70,35,480/- to Shri Banwari Lal Bairwa Rs. 61,77,100/- to Shri Ganesh Lal Rs. 5,45,90,100/- to Smt. Kanta Devi Rs. 63,38,094/- to Shri Mukesh Kumar Bairwa Rs. 60,43,996/- to Shri Raj Kumar Verma Rs. 50,07,274/- to Shri Ram Gopal Bairwa Rs. 79,17,142/- to Smt. Suman Bairwa Rs. 99,37,420/- to Smt. Sunita Bairwa Rs. 38,84,465/- to Smt. Pooja Bairwa and Rs. 79,23,048/- to Shri Udai Garwa which were credited in the bank accounts of above-mentioned persons for the aforesaid purpose. 7. Besides the above, blank cheque-books of above persons were found and seized during the course of search operations which revealed that Shri Ravindra Pratap Singh Parihar had used and managed their bank accounts for his own business purposes and large number of properties were purchased in the names of the above persons/employees belonging to SC/ST category, besides routing of his unaccounted funds. 8. Bank statements obtained from MUCB, Tonk Road, Jaipur, revealed that Rs. 58,55,500/- in account of Shri Hemraj Dhobi Rs. 1,98,65,540/- in account of Shri Banwari Lal Bairwa Rs. 1,11,68,230/- in account of Shri Ganesh Lal Rs. 7,51,62,000/-in account of Smt. Kanta Devi Rs. 63,43,430/- in ac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d with Sh. Parihar. The entire arrangement was done in their names by Sh. Parihar because sellers of these lands were from the SC category. The motive was to by-pass the provisions of law, especially, the Rajasthan Tenancy Act because being an agricultural land pertaining to SC category, the same could only be purchased by the persons belonging to the same category, i.e., SC, and could not have been purchased directly in the name of Sh. Parihar or M/s. Ravi Surya Developers Pvt. Ltd. As such, the same were purchased in the names of the said persons and after getting the same converted into non-agricultural land, the same were subsequently transferred/were to be transferred to his concern. Therefore, he got opened benami accounts in the names of the persons belonging to SC category, so that transactions related to purchase of such lands and subsequent transfer to his concern could be routed through these accounts. All the transactions in such accounts, including the accounts in question, were managed and controlled by Sh. Parihar. 11. Based on the findings of the investigations conducted, the IO was of the view that the immovable properties and the bank accounts in question fell sq....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... firm started acquiring agricultural lands for the project. Wherever registration in the name of company was permitted, sale deeds were executed in the name of company and where registration was not permitted in the name of company, sale deed was executed in the name of director of the company. Thereafter, the process of conversion was initiated and immediately after the process of conversion was approved by the local authority, the land was registered in the name of company. Furthermore, whenever land was purchased in the name of a director of the company or partner of the LLP, a sale agreement and power of attorney was also executed on the same day by the director/partner concerned in favour of the company/LLP. Thus, all the lands were purchased by the company/firm. Only for the temporary period, until the process of conversion was completed, the land was held by the directors/partners of the company/LLP in a fiduciary capacity. 15. The appellants are aggrieved that in spite of detailed submissions being filed before the Adjudicating Authority, the Ld. Authority has confirmed the order of provisional attachment. The appellants contend that the order does not consider the peculia....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....The persons stated to be Benamidars in the impugned order are all Directors of the company M/s Ravi Surya Developers Private Limited or Partners of LLP since 2013. The land was purchased by such persons only in 2015 and the project 'Ananta Resorts' was conceived only in 2017. These persons were appointed as Directors in the company to work for the company and with the intention to procure land for the company. No personal interest of Beneficial Owner can be substantiated, since the aforesaid persons were already the directors in the company since 2013 till date, i.e., almost 10 years and are working for the interest and benefit of the company. Further, sale deeds have also been executed through these directors of the company. 17. It is also contended that the Ld. AA overlooked the fact that various sale deeds referred to in the impugned order passed u/s 24(4) were seized from the premises situated at K-47, Himmat Nagar, Jaipur, which is the registered office of the company. In the order u/s 24(4), it is wrongly mentioned at many places that these sale deeds were seized from the premises of Shri Ravindra Pratap Singh ignoring that Shri Ravindra Pratap Singh resides at P-28, Raj....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se persons for purchase of these lands, it cannot lead to a presumption that these persons are benamidars of Shri Ravindra Pratap Singh. The observation that Shri Ravindra Pratap Singh is shareholder of 90% and his wife is shareholder of 10% has no relevance as company and individual are independent persons. Affairs of the company cannot be presumed to be affairs of Director. Ultimately, after conversion, lands were transferred to the company and not to Shri Ravindra Pratap Singh. Funds provided by Shri Ravindra Pratap Singh have been returned back to him as soon as these persons have received the consideration from the company. Thus, the agriculture lands were purchased by the company and not for Shri Ravindra Pratap Singh. 19. No other arguments, apart from the ones referred to above were pressed by the Ld. Counsel for the appellant. Arguments on behalf of the Respondent 20. The Respondent have strongly contested the arguments presented on behalf of the Appellants. It is contended that nowhere in the purchase deeds, through which the lands were acquired in name of the Benamidars, name of company Ravi Surya Developers Pvt. Ltd. or Ravi Surya Agro Resort LLP is mentioned, nor it....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....member was Covid-positive, hence, they have to remain quarantined, but on the other hand, they were executing conveyance deeds on behalf of the company. For example, Shri Banwari Lal sought second adjournment on 03.11.2020 again on the ground that he himself is Covid positive and has to remain quarantined, but on 04.11.2020, he executed conveyance deed on behalf of company in the favour of Shri Nitesh Kabra and Smt. Madhu Kabra. All these adjournments on their behalf were filed by the same AR who is the AR of Sh. Parihar. It makes it clear that it was an arrangement made by Sh. Parihar only to bypass the state law. 25. It is further contended that if these persons were purchasing these lands in fiduciary capacity of company/LLP, purchase consideration should have been directly given from the account of company or account should have been opened as account holder in the capacity of Director of company or partner of LLP. But in these cases, accounts were opened in individual capacity, funds were transferred in these accounts by Sh. Parihar (not by company/LLP), after conversion, lands were sold to company/LLP and consideration from company/LLP were received again in these accounts a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....than Tenancy Act categorically prohibits cross dealing of any Scheduled Caste Land or Scheduled Tribe Land. However, it is also important to mention that considering the kind of arrangement devised by the beneficial owner and the system of re-routing of the money to purchase the properties, the same falls within the ambit of the PBPT Act. 30. It is also contended that the bank accounts of the benamidars were opened in an individual capacity and not in the capacity of a director of company or partner of LLP and consideration so provided for the purchase of land in the name of these persons were not seen coming directly from the account of the company/LLP. It is further submitted that the Respondents have not put acquired any shareholding in the company nor they have any special education, skill or experience to become directors overnight of the company. Thus, it indicates that these persons are merely dummy directors. Moreover, the conveyance deeds in which these persons put their signatures as first party on behalf of the company were all executed in November 2020, that is, after the issuance of initial summons dated 14.10.2020 from the IO. Thus, it can be reasonably assumed that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d by the alleged benamidars, namely, Shri Hemraj Dhobi, Shri Banwari Lal Bairwa, Shri Ganesh Lal, Smt. Kanta Devi, Shri Mukesh Kumar Bairwa, Shri Raj Kumar Verma, Shri Ram Gopal Bairwa, Smt. Suman Bairwa, Smt. Sunita Bairwa, Smt. Pooja Bairwa and Shri Udai Garwa. Indeed, it is an admitted fact that the properties in question were in the first instance, purchased in the names of the alleged Benamidars as the same could not have been purchased in the name of the company, being agricultural lands belonging to persons of the SC category. 35. This aspect of the definition of 'benami transaction', therefore, does not need to be dwelled upon any further. 36. The second requirement is that the consideration for such property has been provided, or paid by, another person. A volume of factual evidence has been brought on record by the respondent department to this effect. A finding has been recorded that as per the ledger account of Sh. Parihar in the books of these persons, he had given amounts aggregating to Rs. 55,51,000/- to Shri Hemraj Dhobi Rs. 1,70,35,480/- to Shri Banwari Lal Bairwa Rs. 61,77,100/- to Shri Ganesh Lal Rs. 5,45,90,100/- to Smt. Kanta Devi Rs. 63,38,094/- to Shri Muke....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ise any transaction as 'Benami Transaction' is that the property is held either directly or indirectly for the benefit of the person who has provided the consideration. 40. There is ample evidence even with regard to this requirement in the present case. It has been brought on record that the lands purchased in the names of the alleged benamidars, after conversion, were finally sold to M/s Greater Sitapure Developers Pvt. Ltd., M/s Ravi Surya Developers Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Ravi Surya Agro Resorts Pvt. Ltd., which are entities entirely controlled by the alleged Beneficial Owner, Shri Parihar. 41. An issue has been raised in this regard on the behalf of the Appellants that the observation that Shri Parihar is 90 per cent owner of the company and his wife is a 10 per cent owner has no relevance as the company and the individual are independent persons and affairs of the company cannot be presumed to be affairs of the director(s). Ultimately, after conversion, the lands were transferred to the company and not to Shri Parihar, and the funds which had been provided by Shri Parihar had been returned back to him as soon as the consideration was received from the company. Thus, the agricult....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ellants that the impugned transactions were squarely covered by the exception provided under sub-clause 2(9)(A)(ii) which provides that a transaction or arrangement wherein the property is held by a person standing in a fiduciary capacity for the benefit of another person towards whom he stands in such capacity, including, specifically, a director of a company, would not constitute a benami transaction. In the present case, there is no dispute that the alleged benamidars had been made directors of the company M/s Ravi Surya Developers Pvt. Ltd. and they held the property for the benefit of the company. Accordingly, both the conditions were squarely met and therefore, the entire transaction falls outside the purview of benami transaction. 44. We have considered the above submission on behalf of the appellants. At the outset, we observe that the exception provided under section 2(9)(A)(ii) would arise only in a situation where a property is held by a person standing in a fiduciary capacity for the benefit of another person towards whom he stands in such capacity. In the present case, the alleged beneficial owner is Sh. Ravindra Pratap Singh Parmar and not the company. It is not the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....able to be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term of 1 to 7 years and also a fine of up to 25 percent of the fair market value of the property. In fact, the said Section 53 is the most stringent provision contained in the PBPT Act. Moreover, it is a well-established principle of law that the provisions of an Act of the Parliament shall not be evaded by shift or contrivance. To carry out effectually the object of a statute, it must be construed so as to defeat all attempts to do, or avoid doing, in an indirect or circuitous manner that which it has prohibited or enjoined. It was so held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jagir Singh vs. Ranbir Singh and Ors. MANU/SC/0097/1978 (09.11.1978), and Dayal Singh and Ors. Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. MANU/SC/0058/2003 (29.01.2003). The view taken by the Apex Court in the said cases has subsequently been reiterated in a host of other decided cases. Though the above case laws specifically refer to an Act of the Parliament, the underlying principle would apply equally to a law enacted by the State Legislature. 47. Finally, to recapitulate, the facts on record in the present case clearly reveal that the kingpin and mastermind behind ....