TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 928
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2. 170/2 Chhitapandariya 3. 171/1 Chhitapandariya 4. 171/2 Chhitapandariya 5. 171/3 Chhitapandariya 6. 171/4 Chhitapandariya 7. 171/5 Chhitapandariya 8. 171/6 Chhitapandariya 9. 171/7 Chhitapandariya 10. 171/8 Chhitapandariya 11. 173/1 Chhitapandariya 12. 173/2 Chhitapandariya 13. 181/2 Chhitapandariya 14. 181/3 Chhitapandariya 15. 183/4 Chhitapandariya 16. 184/1 Chhitapandariya 17. 184/3 Chhitapandariya 18. 184/4 Chhitapandariya 19. 184/7 Chhitapandariya 20. 185/1 Chhitapandariya 21. 188/1 Chhitapandariya 22. 188/2 Chhitapandariya 23. 188/3 Chhitapandariya 24. 188/4 Chhitapandariya 25. 189/3 Chhitapandariya 26. 189/4 Chhitapandariya 27. 189/8 Chhitapandariya 28. 189/10 Chhitapandariya ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 712/12 Khamhariya 89. 712/13 Khamhariya 90. 712/14 Khamhariya 91. 712/15 Khamhariya 92. 712/16 Khamhariya 93. 728/1 Khamhariya 94. 809/1 Khamhariya 95. 809/6 Khamhariya 96. 814/1 Khamhariya 97. 814/5 Khamhariya 98. 814/6 Khamhariya 99. 814/7 Khamhariya 100. 816 Khamhariya 101. 894 Khamhariya 102. 896 Khamhariya 2. As per the facts of the case, the Initiating Officer initiated investigation on the basis of information, sale deeds, bank statements & enquiry conducted by him and found that M/s Gurushree Minerals Pvt. Ltd. has purchased various tribal lands in the name of Shri Ratan Singh and his family members at Villages - Akalsara (2.701 Ha.), Khamhariya (13.526 Ha.) and Chhitapandariya (14.37 Ha.), (Total - 30.602 Ha.), Tehsil - Jaijaipur, District - Sakti. It was gathered during the course of investigation that Shri Ratan Singh, along with other co-owners, has made application before District Collect....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or sale of these lands to M/s Gurushree Minerals Pvt. Ltd. The impugned properties were purchased through cheque payment from Axis Bank - A/c No. 920020042478318 held in the name of Ratan Singh and his wife. When questioned about the above banking transactions in his statement, Shri Ratan Singh mentioned that he had no knowledge regarding the same. He has also mentioned that he does not know any of the sellers of these lands, nor he has any information regarding the amount or source of funds paid for purchasing these lands. It is specifically mentioned by Shri Ratan Singh in his statement on oath that as per the directions received from Shri Mukesh Bansal (Director-M/s Gurushree Minerals Pvt. Ltd.), he and his family members went to the Registrar office merely for signing any sale/purchase related documents. All the considerations for making purchases were paid by Shri Mukesh Bansal. It supported by the evidence that before making investment in the said properties, the funds were transferred in the bank account of Shri Ratan Singh from M/s Gurushree Minerals Pvt. Ltd. These lands are tribal lands and, therefore, they were purchased by M/s Gurushree Minerals Pvt. Ltd. (non-tribal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he basis of his investigation and analysis of the documents concluded that Shri Ratan Singh is a person of no means and a lowly paid employee of M/s Gurushree Minerals Pvt. Ltd. for purchase of land of 30.602 hectares in his name and in the name of his family members to defeat the provisions of Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, which prohibits the purchase of tribal land by a non-tribal person. The lands were purchased from the funds made available by M/s Gurushree Minerals Pvt. Ltd. for purpose of mining activities. Thus, the land was purchased in the name of Shri Ratan Singh and his family members for immediate or future benefits, direct or indirect, of M/s Gurushree Minerals Pvt. Ltd. i.e. the person who has provided the consideration. The Initiating Officer observed that the transaction of lands is a benami transaction u/s 2(9)(A) of PBPTA, 1988 and Shri Ratan Singh and family members are the benamidars for the subject properties and M/s Gurushree Minerals Pvt. Ltd. is the beneficial owner. On the belief and on factual and circumstantial evidences, a SCN u/s 24(1) of the PBPTA dated 30.11.2022 was issued to the benamidars with a copy to the beneficial owner. In response ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was passed on the basis of letter dated 17.02.2022 issued by Income Tax Department, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, Raipur u/s 51 of Chhattisgarh Revenue Code, 1959 as reflected from order at page 685 of the appeal paper book. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant pointed out that the Appellant Company challenged the said review order passed by the District Collector vide a writ petition and the Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh stayed the operation of the review order, till the pendency of the Writ Petition vide order dated 07.04.2022 in Writ Petition (C) No. 1640 of 2022), which is at page 804 of the appeal paper book. He pointed out the Show Cause Notice u/s 24(1) of PBPTA, 1988 by Initiating Officer, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Benami Prohibition) Raipur dated 30.11.2022 which is at page 81 to 133 of the appeal paper book. He pointed out our attention to para 1.3, Page 82 of the Show Cause Notice wherein it is mentioned that: "1.3 It was gathered during the course of investigation that Shri Ratan Singh, along with other co-owners, has made application before District Collector, Janjgir Champa for obtaining permission to sell certain Tribal lands to one no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on standing in a fiduciary capacity for the benefit of another person towards whom he stands in such capacity and includes a trustee, executor, partner, director of a company, a depository or a participant as an agent of a depository under the Depositories Act, 1996 and any other person as may be notified by the Central Government for this purpose;(iii)any person being an individual in the name of his spouse or in the name of any child of such individual and the consideration for such property has been provided or paid out of the known sources of the individual;(iv)any person in the name of his brother or sister or lineal ascendant or descendant, where the names of brother or sister or lineal ascendant or descendant and the individual appear as joint- owners in any document, and the consideration for such property has been provided or paid out of the known sources of the individual; or" Accordingly, he contended that Section 2(9)(A) is not attracted by stretch of any imagination, as the Appellant Company gave the sale consideration to the vendor Ratan Singh and his family members and they executed the sale deed in favour of the Appellant Company. Accordingly, he stressed that th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the Show Cause Notice that the said sale deeds are cancelled is no ground to set aside the proceedings initiated and concluded under PBPTA, till date. He argued that whether the said sale deeds and the reviewing order passed by the District Collector are sustained, or set aside, it does not affect the complexion of the present PBPTA case, seeing the fact that the Appellant Company purchased the land of tribals in two stages, firstly by financing Ratan Singh to purchase the land of tribals in and then obtaining the sale deeds from Ratan Singh in their favour in order to avoid any legal restriction in transfer of the tribal land. He also pointed out Section 6 of the PBPTA which is reproduced as under: "[Prohibition on re-transfer of property by benamidar. 6. (1) No person, being a benamidar shall re-transfer the benami property held by him to the beneficial owner or any other person acting on his behalf. (2) Where any property is re-transferred in contravention of the provisions of sub-section (1), the transaction of such property shall be deemed to be null and void. (3) The provisions of sub-sections (1) and (2) shall not apply to a transfer mad....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....roborated with the statement of Shri Ratan Singh, wherein he clearly expressed his ignorance about the land transactions and took the plea that he simply signed the documents at the instance of Shri Mukesh Bansal, the Director of the Appellant Company. Moreover, his bank account was operated by the Appellant Company and not by benamidar Ratan Singh and his family members. Appellant company has not produced any loan agreement with Ratan Singh for tendering the heavy loan amount. There is nothing on record that appellant company took any personal or collateral surety from Ratan Singh for giving the alleged loan. Hence, purchase of land by Appellant Company in the name of Ratan Singh through 57 sale deeds are clearly the benami transactions. This fact is also corroborated with the fact that within the short span of purchase, the appellant company got transferred the said lands in its own name by way of three sale deeds mentioned at serial no. 58 to 60 in the Show Cause Notice at page 94 & 95 of the Appeal paper book. Ratan Singh was working with the appellant company as driver since last 17 years and was receiving salary of Rs. 15,000/- per month. With such a meagre monthly income, on....