AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 1177
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mmaluri Sri Hari and Shri A. Pandari said to be the employees of M/s Jayabheri Properties Pvt. Ltd., were recorded on 04.04.2019. It was categorically stated that they picked up the cash of Rs. 2 Crore from the office of M/s Jayabheri Properties Pvt. Ltd. on the direction of Shri Rachamalla Dharma Raju, Accounts Manager of the Company, to hand over it to Shri Elamanchila Murali Krishna at Rajahmundry Railway Station, Andhra Pradesh. The two persons from whom the cash was recovered stated that the cash does not belong to them. Shri Dharma Raju Rachamalla assigned the work to them with the instruction to carry the cash and hand it over at Rajahmundry Railway Station to Shri Elamanchila Murali Krishna. 3. Subsequent to the aforesaid, a survey operation under Section 133A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was carried out by the DDIV(Inv.), Hyderabad in the cases of 4 companies viz. M/s Jayabheri Properties Pvt. Ltd., Jayabheri Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., Jayabheri Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. and Jayabheri Properties & Services Pvt. Ltd.. The statement of Shri Rama Murthy Reddy, Accounts Officer was recorded on 05.04.2019. The matter was then initiated under the Act of 1988 and accordingly show cau....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was contesting the elections. In reference to the fact aforesaid, a case of benami transaction was not made out and otherwise the appellant has shown the amount of Rs. 2 Crore to be undisclosed income and has been assessed for the Assessment Year 2020-21. It was taking it to be the business income for a sum of Rs. 2,00,97,760/-. Once the amount was assessed as income, it could not have been treated to be a case of benami property. Thus, on the aforesaid ground also, the impugned order deserves to be set-aside. 8. The appellant did not raise any other issues despite an opportunity to raise any legal or factual issues. Ld. Counsel for the appellant restricted his arguments to what has been referred above and accordingly, Ld. Counsel for the respondent was invited to contest the appeal. Arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the respondent: 9. Ld. Counsel for the respondent contested the appeal and submitted that a case of benami transaction is made out and accordingly benami property was provisionally attached by the Initiating Officer. However, it is not by invoking Section 24(3) of the Act of 1988 but Section 24(4) of the said Act. It was when the cash of Rs. 2 Crore was found ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....elonging to them. 11. The statement of Shri Rama Murthy Reddy, Accounts Manager was also recorded on 05.04.2019 who denied having knowledge about the cash and source thereof. It was, however, admitted that the two persons, namely, Shri Nimmaluri Sri Hari and Shri A. Pandari were salaried employees of the Company and working for the last 15-20 years. He disowned the source of Rs. 2 crores. The Adjudicating Authority considered all the relevant evidence on record and came to the conclusion that there exists benami transaction and accordingly confirmed the PAO. 12. Ld. Counsel for the appellant challenged the impugned order in reference to Section 24(3) of the Act of 1988 alleging that when the amount of Rs. 2 crore was handed over to Income Tax Department under the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate then the Initiating Officer could not have drawn apprehension of alienation or transfer of cash. We find that the PAO was not passed under Section 24(3) of the Act of 1988, rather, it was passed under sub-section (4)(b) of Section 24 of the Act of 1988. Section 24 of the Act of 1988 is reproduced herein for ready reference: 24. Notice and attachment of property involved i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r sub-clause (i) of clause (b) of that sub-section, he shall, within fifteen days from the date of the attachment, draw up a statement of the case and refer it to the Adjudicating Authority. 13. A perusal of Sub-section (4)(b) of the Section 24 of the Act of 1988, quoted above, reveals that where the PAO has not been made under sub-Section (3) of Section 24 of the Act of 1988, the order can be passed by the Initiating Officer with prior approval of the Approving Authority till the passing of the order by the Adjudicating Authority under sub-section(3) of Section 26 of the Act of 1988. The provision aforesaid has been invoked by the respondent in the case in hand where provisional attachment does not pre-supposes apprehension of alienation. Ld. Counsel for the appellant has argued the case treating it to be under Section 24(3) of the Act of 1988 whereas the PAO was under Section 24(4)(b) of the Act of 1988 and therefore the first ground raised by the appellant in reference to the order passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate to hand over the seized cash to the Income Tax Department would not nullify the PAO having been passed under Section 24(4)(b) of the Act of 1988. The first gro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d month wise turnover declared in GST for AY 2020-21 and AY 2021-22. Please furnish the details of sundry creditors of Rs. 1,51,000/- Please furnish the details of sales of services of Rs. 2,28,39,143/- such as name and address of the person, amount received, mode of receipt, nature of receipt etc. Please furnish details of salaries of Rs. 1,84, 000/, travelling expenses of Rs. 1, 69, 800/, other expenses of Rs. 21,38,433/- and telephone expenses of Rs. 28,750/-. Please produce the books of account and vouchers for verification. 15. The assessee failed to furnish details of the business income and therefore a show cause notice dated 19.02.2022 issued to him calling for the following details:- You have admitted Rs. 2,00,97, 760/- as income from the business of Real Estate business. However, no further details on nature of projects undertaken, name and address of persons from whom receipts accrued or bills/ vouchers in support of expenses were furnished in the absence or valid document's, please explain why the said income should not be treated as unexplained credit u/s. 68 and brought to tax under the head Income from other sources....