2025 (9) TMI 1422

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....0 lakhs recovered from the appellant. The impugned order was passed finding the cash amount to be out of benami transaction in the hands of the benamidar whose beneficial owner is not known. Brief facts of the case: 2. It is a case where during the period of model code of conduct for Karnataka Assembly Election, 2018, a four-wheeler vehicle Mahindra Xylo of Mr. C M Swamy bearing no. KA01MG9413 was intercepted by the State Excise Department. They found cash of Rs. 24.50 lakhs in the vehicle and in turn it was informed to the Flying Squad Team and the police. The information was then sent to the Income Tax Department on 12.02.2018. The appellant, Mr. C.S. Swamy was asked to explain the source of the cash found with him. It was stated on....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of the Counsel for the appellant: 5. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the statements of the appellant were recorded under Section 19(1) of the Act of 1988 which could not have been used against him but the Adjudicating Authority relied on the statement of the appellant to confirm the Provisional Attachment Order. 6. Ld. Counsel for the appellant further submitted that the amount of Rs. 24.50 lakhs was out of the income of the appellant and for which he subsequently disclosed it to the Income-tax Authorities. It added the amount in his income taking it to be undisclosed income of the appellant and therefore it could not have been considered to be a case of benami transaction of which beneficial owner is not known, though, ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....and are admissible in evidence. The appellant did not claim his right on the currency recovered from him, rather, it was later on shown to be of Smt. Poornima Srinivas who was contesting the Assembly Election. The statements of Smt. Poornima Srinivas were also recorded who denied knowledge about the cash found with the appellant, Mr., C M Swamy, rather, she was not knowing the appellant and Mr. S M Jagdish and therefore the beneficial owner of the cash remained unknown and accordingly proceedings were initiated under Section 2(9)(c) of the Act of 1988. 11. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the amount recovered from the appellant was disclosed to the Income-tax authorities for which assessment order has been passed adding the a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... an income-tax payee prior to recovery of amount of Rs. 24.50 lakhs. No pleading to this effect exists. In the light of the facts given above, we do not find a case in favour of the appellant to cause interference therein. 12. The Adjudicating Authority has recorded its finding after going through the provisions of the Act of 1988 and even on material produced before it. It analyzed the issue in reference to the facts/ materials and evidence brought by the respondent. After receipt of the reference filed by the Initiating Officer, the Adjudicating Authority issued notice to the appellant on 06.06.2019 for appearance on 01.08.2019. The appellant did not appear before the Adjudicating Authority and no reply to the notice was filed. Though,....