TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 618
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the appellant submitted that the property bearing No. B-404, 2nd Floor, Meera Bagh, Paschim VIhar, New Delhi has been provisionally attached, though, it was not out of a benami transaction. The provisional attachment of the property is based on the allegation that a sum of Rs. 43,50,000/- was received by the appellant from M/s Mac Allied Sales Corp. on 12.11.2016 in lieu of the cash deposited in the account of a Firm of Shri Atul Tyagi. 3. Ld. Counsel for the appellant referred the fact of the case to allege that without there being a benami transaction, the property has been provisionally attached taking appellant to be the beneficial owner. It is in ignorance of the bank statement of the Axis Bank of M/s Ajanta Overseas of which the appellant is the proprietor. A sum of Rs. 43,50,000/- was received from M/s Mac Allied Sales Corp. whose sole proprietor is Shri Atul Tyagi. It was after deposit of the equivalent amount in cash. 4. So far as the payment of Rs. 18,31,858/- and Rs. 22,49,100/- to M/s Om Associates is concerned, it could not have been taken basis for holding a case of benami property and appellant to be a beneficial owner. The payment aforesaid was in the course o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....disclosed in the Income Tax Return for the Financial Year 2016-2017 and has been accepted by the Income Tax Department. Once income has been assessed by the Income Tax Department, it could not have been taken towards the benami transaction. 10. A further attachment of Rs. 10,00,000/- was added just to make the amount of Rs. 44,00,000/-, otherwise, it was out of Challan of Custom Duty paid by the appellant on 02.01.2017. The aforesaid sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- was having no nexus with the benami transaction. The prayer was accordingly made to cause interference in the impugned order. Arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the respondent: 11. The appeal was contested by the respondent on all the grounds raised by the appellant. The elaborate argument was made by Ld. Counsel for the respondent which would be referred while recording the findings to avoid repetition of same facts and for the sake or brevity. Findings of the Tribunal: 12. The appellant has given the brief framework of the case which is quite different than referred in the impugned order. It is a case where search was conducted at the residence of Shri Atul Tyagi and his various entities on 09.12.2016. It revealed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ord is that appellant had deposited a sum of Rs. 43,50,000/- in cash in the bank account of M/s Mac Allied Sales Corp.. It was to be routed as an accommodation entry. The appellant was then asked to explain the utilization of the funds of Rs. 43,50,000/-. The appellant in his statement dated 21.09.2020 submitted out of the said amount, a sum of Rs. 40,80,000/- was utilized for payment to M/s OM Associates for purchase of furniture for sale against the orders/advances received during the period and Rs. 2,70,000/- was transferred to Smt. Anju Gupta for purchase of property in Rohini. The Adjudicating Authority has drawn his conclusion based on the material and found it to be a case of benami transaction of which the appellant was held to be beneficial owner. 15. Ld. Counsel for the appellant seriously contested the matter to show that the transaction in question would not fall within the definition of the 'Benami Transaction' under Section 2(9) of the Act of 1988, as amended. We have considered the rival contentions. We find that the appellant himself has admitted to having provided cash to Sh. Atul Tyagi to deposit in the bank account of his firm and subsequently, the amount was ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t. • On 20.02.2017, an amount of Rs. 35 Lakhs out of the above amount of Rs. 43.5 Lakhs. was utlised for purchase of the property located at 176-177, Second Floor, Pocket 21. Sector-24, Rohini, New Delhi- 110085. • On 15.02.2018, the aforesaid Rohini property was sold. • On 28.02,2018, the proceeds of sale of the same were further utilised to purchase the property at B-404, 2d Floor, Meera Bagh, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi. 17. Based on the above finding, the said Meera Bagh property has been attached to the extent of Rs. 34 Lakhs. 18. As regards the security deposit of Rs. 10 Lakhs made with the Customs authority, the same was attached based on the findings that a part of the proceeds of the above benami property was infused into the business of the firm and thereafter utilised for payment of the security deposit. 19. As against this, the factual contentions of the appellant as per the written synopsis of arguments filed by the appellant on affidavit on 04.08.2025 are summarised in the chronological table below: DATE EVENT (As Claimed by The Appellant) 2013 Mrs. Anju (Appellant's mother) Gupta acquired residential proper....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at she was the owner of a DDA Flat purchased in the year 2013. In the Grounds of Appeal, it is mentioned that the appellant had received a loan of Rs. 30 lakhs from his mother on 11.04.2016 whereas in the written synopsis the amount is stated to be Rs. 35 lakhs, for which the source is stated to be the sale proceeds from the DDA flat allotted to his mother in 2013. In the Grounds of Appeal (Ground No. vi), it is categorically asserted that the appellant is the one who paid money from his own pocket to purchase the attached property whereas in the Written Synopsis (para 7), it is stated that this property was purchased by the mother from the funds accumulated in her account. From these observations, it appears that even the factual averments of the appellant have been evolving over time to suit his case. 21. In para 16 above, we have already held that a benami transaction as defined by the Act did occur in the present case. But the further question we are called upon to address is whether the properties which have been attached by the Respondents were acquired out of the proceeds of the original benami property, namely, the cash provided by the appellant to Sh. Atul Tyagi and dep....