TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 1228
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....018, and upheld the Provisional Attachment Order dated 22.12.2017 ("PAO") passed under Section 24(4)(a)(i) and 24(4)(b)(i) of PBPTA. The subject property of the Reference, that is, assets in Balance Sheet of the Appellant/Beneficial Owner to the extent of Rs. 51,70,000/- including Bank Accounts (whichever could be traced out) was held as Benami Property under Section 2(8) of the PBPTA. Ld. Counsel stated that pursuant to PAO dated 22.12.2017, the Bank Account of the Appellant/Beneficial Owner with Punjab National Bank ("PNB") maintained at Dibai Branch, District Bulandshhar, Uttar Pradesh, Pin 202393 bearing Account NO. 0633008700002577 to the extent of Rs. 51,50,000/- have been attached. 3. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant pleaded that the Ld. Adjudicating Authority had wrongly confirmed the Provisional Attachment Order on an erroneous interpretation of law and facts. Ld. Counsel argued that based on the facts of the case and provisions of PBPTA, the only reasonable inference which could have been drawn is that the Appellant is not a Beneficial Owner within the import of Section 2(12) of the PBPTA. Further, the Appellant was not engaged in Benami Transactions as defined under Sectio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n 2(9) of the PBPTA. Ld. Counsel relied upon the statements of Sh. Ashwini Kapoor and Sh. Manish Bugga, employee of Sh. Ashwini Kapoor recorded under Section 19(1)(a) of the PBPTA to buttress his assertions that the cash deposited in the bank account of M/s Rishi Hardware did not belong to the Appellant. 8. Ld. Counsel prayed to allow the present appeal, to set aside the Impugned Order dated 28.01.2019 and release the properties of the Appellant attached vide the Provisional Attachment Order dated 22.12.2017. 9. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent pleaded that Ld. Adjudicating Authority issued a well-reasoned order based on proper application of mind. Ld. Counsel stated that the Ld. Adjudicating Authority had correctly confirmed the Provisional Attachment Order dated 22.12.2017. Ld. Counsel stated that Ld. Adjudicating Authority was correct in concluding that the Property comprising of assets in balance sheet of the Appellant/Beneficial Owner to the extent of Rs. 51,70,000/- including the bank account were Benami Property within the import of Section 2(8) of the PBPTA. 10. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent pleaded that based on a thorough investigation conducted by the Deputy Director o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion 2(12) of PBPTA. Ld. Counsel contended that alleged sale of gold bars took place during the Demonetization period. Large amount of cash was deposited in the bank accounts of M/s Rishi Hardware by one Sh. Ashwani, which were then transferred vide Cheques to the Appellant between the period of 30.11.2016 to 07.12.2016. Ld. Counsel contended that unaccounted cash of the Appellant was channelized in the banking system by using bank accounts of M/s Rishi Hardware as "accommodation entries", which were operated by one Sh. Ashwani Kapoor, who was the "entry provider" for the Appellant. Ld. Counsel contended that it is suspicious that no transaction was undertaken between the Appellant and M/s Rishi Hardware before November 2016 or after the conclusion of the demonetization period on 30.12.2016. Ld. Counsel contended that there are no reasonable reasons why M/s Rishi Traders, based in Parwanoo, Himachal Pradesh would engage in alleged sale of gold bars with the Appellant based in Meerut, Uttar Pradesh. Ld. Counsel contended that it is unbelievable that Sh. Ashwani sent his driver, one Sh. Chhotey Lal to collect and transport the alleged purchase of gold bars across state boundaries. Ld.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vestigation conducted by the DDIT (Inv.) has revealed corroborative evidences and attendant circumstances for the inescapable inference that the Appellant in the present case is the Beneficial Owner, and the deposit of cash by one Sh. Ashwani Kapoor in the bank account of M/s Rishi Hardware and its subsequent transfer to bank account of Appellant for a sum of Rs. 51,70,000/- is a benami transaction within the contours of Section 2(9)(A) of PBPTA. 18. We take note of the surrounding facts and circumstances of the case which lend credence to our finding in the preceding paragraph. We observe that the sum of Rs. 51,50,000/- was received by the Appellant through series of cheques deposited on different dates between 30.11.2016 to 07.12.2016. However, the Appellant raised invoice for only Rs 30,20,003/-, while the balance amount of Rs 21,50,000/- was adjusted in the bank account of Sh. Ashwini Kapoor, and Rs 3/- was written off as unrecoverable. The Appellant has failed to provide any justifiable reason as to why the sum of Rs 21,50,000/- which was received from M/s Rishi Hardware had been recorded as a credit entry in the account of Sh. Ashwani Kumar Kapoor in the Books of Account bel....