TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 394
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ajarhat Bishnupur-I, Mouza-Jagdishpur, purchased through registered Sale Deed No.07063/2017 and land property of 1.65 Decimal at the Address of R.S. Dag No. 5967 of District North 24 Parganas, PS Rajarhat, Gram Panchayat-Rajarhat Bishnupur-I, Mouza-Jagdishpur, purchased through registered Sale Deed No.07833/2017 were attached. 2. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant stated that the Appellant and his family were engaged in agriculture, poultry, pisciculture, dairy and allied activities. The Appellant is very lowly educated person and had also sold his agricultural land. It is from these sources that the Appellant had generated funds to buy land for agricultural purposes from time to time. He alleged that the Appellant had been receiving threats from certain influential persons. Ld. Counsel stated that the Appellant was issued 15 Show Cause Notices (SCN) on 22.12.2017 for the purchase of parcels of agricultural land. However, the Appeals relating to only two aforementioned references are being argued to be taken up for decision by the Tribunal as the matters relating to other 13 SCNs are for the purchase of land before November, 2016, which need to be looked into in terms of decisions of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... were executed by the unidentified land mediators. Ld. Counsel argued that there is no provision under PBPTA of the onus being on the Appellant to discharge the burden of proof. The Respondent has failed to establish the charge against the Appellant. Ld. Counsel alleged contravention of the principle of natural justice as the plea of the Appellant to be heard was turned down on the ground that the Order was already reserved on 24.10.2018, when in fact it was passed after five months on 25.03.2019. Ld. Counsel contended that that Impugned Orders were passed beyond the limitation period prescribed for the same. He stated that the Orders under Section 26(3) of PBPTA are to be passed within a period of one year from the end of the month in which the reference under Section 24(5) of the Act was received. However, this did not happen. Ld. Counsel cited the Judgment dated 20.04.1999 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pawan Kumar Gupta vs. Rochiram Nagdeo [1999 (4) SCC 243]. Ld. Counsel contended that in accordance with the Judgment (Supra) where the consideration had been paid by the purchaser of the property, the words provided would not have any application. In the present case....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Ld. Counsel confirmed that the Orders were put up for approval under Section 24(4)(b)(i) of PBPTA on 20.03.2018 to the Approving Authority, for making the provisional attachment. He further contended that the Approving Authority had given his approval on 21.03.2018. The IO thereafter filed the references under Section 24(5) of PBPTA on 28.03.2018. The Adjudicating Authority issued the SCN on 20.04.2018. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent stated that irrespective of the technical flaws alleged by the Appellant, what is needed to be determined is the fact whether the transactions are Benami or not. Ld. Counsel stated that the Adjudicating Authority had fixed the hearing on 12.07.2018, however, the Appellant sought an adjournment. The matter was re-fixed on 24.10.2018, but none appeared. Ld. Counsel stated that the Appellant had not even given response to the SCN. Ld. Counsel further stated that the Adjudicating Authority found that most of the transactions were carried out in cash. Moreover, even his son Shri Nizamuddin Molla, though having filed ITRs did not have income profile as to provide the consideration for the two impugned properties. In any case the Appellant also could not sho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re no reasons to believe to issue the PAOs. It is also incorrect to state that action was taken without proper application of mind by the Approving Authority. In fact, the IO has categorically recorded that the opportunity was given to the Appellant through notice and its reminders to explain the acquisition of the two impugned properties which he failed to do other than having acknowledged the notice on 15.03.2018. We are not convinced by the contention made by the Appellant that the IO did not have any material before him to issue the notice to the Appellant. The note itself shows that the IO had the material available with him, which enabled him to issue notice, and make enquiry calling for reports and evidence within the available time frame. We find that the available record and materials were perused by the Approving Authority. Moreover, it is clear from the note dated 21.03.2018 of the Approving Authority that he examined the evidence gathered during the enquires conducted by the IO. In the face of the overwhelming evidence in the form of the two notes, we observe that the contentions made with regard to the alleged procedural flaws are nothing, but surmises based on presump....