TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 393
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd bearing Survey No. 446 at Village Murud Dapoli. The fact on record shows that the benamidar, Mr. Sadanand Kadam was involved in Cable Network distribution business and even ventured into the hospitality business. He has claimed ownership of the alleged benami property in Village Murud Dapoli. The fact on records shows that the land in question was purchased by Mr. Anil Dattatreya Parab from Mr. Vibhas Sathe by making full and final payment of Rs. 1 Crore on 12.05.2017. The Sale Deed was then executed after two years on 19.06.2019. The construction of the resort on the land was started by the beneficial owner in the year 2017-2018 itself. He became Minister in Maharashtra Government in December, 2019. The land aforesaid was sold by the beneficial owner, Mr. Anil Parab to the benamidar in December, 2020 when the news was flashed about the irregularity in construction of the resort. The land was immediately sold thereupon to Mr. Sadanand Kadam for a consideration of Rs. 1.1 Crore in 2020. Though, in the meanwhile the construction of the resort was carried out where around a sum of Rs. 5 Crores was spent. The Initiating Officer considered it to be a case of benami transaction where ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rab, construction of the resort was carried out by Mr. Sadanand Kadam from his own sources. No money was spent by Mr. Anil Dattatreya Parab for construction of the resort and as per the arrangement agreed between the parties. The land was conveyed in favour of Mr. Sadanand Kadam (benamidar) by executing a Sale Deed on 31.12.2020. The equivalent and matching amount of consideration paid by the beneficial owner to Mr. Vibhas Sathe was paid by the benamidar in the year 2020 after taking loan, thus, there was no element of benami transaction remains. It is not a case where the property was purchased in the name of benamidar of which consideration was paid by the beneficial owner for his future benefit. In fact, the property in question was purchased by the benamidar from his own source and accordingly the consideration was also paid by him, though, during the intervening period and for time being, the transaction may be involving the beneficial owner, Mr. Anil Dattatreya Parab, but it was till the fund were not available with the appellant. In view of the above, the prayer was made to cause interference in the impugned order. 5. Ld. Counsel for the appellant made a reference of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n reference to the facts and material available on record but even on the legal issues. The arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the respondent would be referred while recording our findings to the arguments of Ld. Counsel for the appellants to avoid repetition of same facts and for the sake of brevity. Findings of the Tribunal: 10. The facts of the case have been given in brief in the opening paras to indicate that the land bearing Survey No. 446 at Village Murud Dapoli was initially purchased by the beneficial owner, Mr. Anil Parab from Mr. Vibhas Sathe by making full and final payment of Rs. 1 Crore on 12.05.2017. It is a fact that the Registered Sale Deed was not executed immediately on the payment of full consideration but was executed on 19.06.2019. The facts on record and as stated by the appellant, the construction of the resort on the said property was undertaken by incurring a sum of Rs. 4.13 Crores. It is, however, with the further statement that the construction could not be completed due to news broken in the public domain alleging irregularities due contravention of the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ). The fact further shows that the beneficial owner, Mr. Anil Parab b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent, and the consideration for such property has been provided or paid out of the known sources of the individual; or xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx 12. A case of benami transaction would make out when the property is transferred or held by a person whose consideration is paid by other person for his future benefit. In the instant case, respondent have taken a case of benami transaction for the reason that the consideration of the land was paid by the beneficial owner, Shri Anil Parab for his future benefit but the property was held by the benamidar, Shri Sadanand Kadam. To analyze the issue, we need to arrange the facts in seriatim:- • Initially the land of Survey No. 446 of Village Murad Dapoli was purchased by Mr. Anil Parab from Mr. Vibhas Sathe for a consideration of Rs. 1 Crore on 12.05.2017. There is no dispute that the consideration was paid by the beneficial owner Mr. Anil Parab. It is said to be on behalf of the benamidar, Shri Sadanand Kadam on his request for the reason that he was short of funds at that time, yet intended to purchase the property in question. • There is nothing on record to prove the arrangement aforesaid. The fu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n of Rs. 1.1 Crore only. We cannot ignore further fact that even amount of Rs. 1.1 Crore was not paid at the time of execution of Sale Deed dated 30.12.2020, rather, it was paid almost after a period of 6 months and that too not matching to the value of the property because it could not have been valued less than Rs. 5.13 Crores i.e. the value of the land in the year 2017 and with the addition of the construction cost, ignoring the appreciation in value. There is nothing on record to prove that the complete consideration was passed to the beneficial owner and accordingly respondent has taken it to be a case of benami transaction. 15. The peculiarity of the facts would not end with the aforesaid, rather, in view of the fact that even to make the payment of consideration of Rs. 1.1 Crore, Mr. Sadanand Kadam had taken loan for which Mr. Anil Parab stood guarantor. Thus, in the case of default in making the payment, the financial institution was having a exposure to recover the amount from the guarantor. This fact exposes the transaction in the manner it took place. 16. We have, further, analyzed the diary recovered from Mr. Aniket Sadanand Kadam son of Mr. Sadanand Kadam. The am....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ding ninety days from the date of issue of notice under sub-section (1). (4) to (5) xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx 20. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that Section 24(3) of the Act of 1988 can be invoked by the Initiating Officer when he is of the opinion that the person is in possession of the property held benami may alienate it during the period specified in the notice. He may, with the previous approval of the approving authority, by order in writing, attach provisionally the property in the manner as may be prescribed for a period not exceeding ninety days. Notice is, otherwise, to be caused under Section 24(1) of the Act of 1988 which was issued on the appellant on 31.08.2022 while the previous approval for provisional attachment was taken on 30.08.2022. 21. The previous approval is to be sought after causing notice and that too when there remains apprehension of alienation of the property by the benamidar. In reply to the aforesaid issue, it is submitted by the respondent that when the Initiating Officer caused investigation / inquiry and finding a case of benami transaction, it would cause a notice under Section 24(1) of the Act of 1988 and while causing ....