2025 (8) TMI 272

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 1988 (in short "the PBPT Act") to challenge the order dated 24.03.2022 passed by the Adjudicating Authority confirming the Provisional Attachment Order (PAO) and answering the reference adverse to the appellant. Arguments of the Counsel for the appellants: 2. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the case involves two transactions of Rs. 25,00,000/- each. The amount said to have been given by the appellant as beneficial owner to benamidar Mohd. Rizwan Saiyed during the course of demonetization. The benamidar deposited the money in the bank accounts of M/s Gujarat Enterprise and M/s Aryan Corporation. The said companies thereupon pass on the total sum of Rs. 50,00,000/- to the appellants i.e. Rs. 25,00,000/- each. 3. Ld. Counsel ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....by the Adjudicating Authority, thus, for the aforesaid reason also, the impugned orders deserves to be set- aside. 5. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant did not raise any other argument, rather, restricted her argument to the extent indicated above. Arguments of the Counsel for the respondent: 6. The appeals were seriously opposed by the Counsel for the respondent. Elaborate arguments were made to demonstrate a case of benami transaction and would be referred at the time of recoding finding to the arguments raised by the appellant. Findings of the Tribunal: 7. It is a case where the Counsel for the appellants was fair to disclose the fact that an amount of Rs. 25,00,000/- each was given to benamidar to place it in his bank account dur....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....idence to this effect other than the averments. He could not refer even bank statement of accounts to show receipt of the tuition fee or even the Income Tax Return where income said to have been disclosed. In fact, statement about the earning of an amount of Rs. 25,00,000/- by each appellant out of tuition remains for the sake of it. 9. Ld. Counsel for the appellant was invited to refer any evidence to demonstrate that the amount involved in the benami transaction was out of known sources of income. The Counsel for the appellant failed to demonstrate any material which may prove receipt of the amount in these case to be out of the earnings. In fact, the entire transaction was undertaken by the appellant using the benamidar to channelize de....