TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (1) TMI 1665
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nsactions Act, 1988 ("PBPTA") challenging Order dated 04.10.2021 ("Impugned Order") of the Ld. Adjudicating Authority in Reference No R- 1954/2020. Shri Umesh Jugalkishore Bhati ("Benamidar") is the sole Respondent in the Appeal. 2. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant has summarised that the present appeal has been preferred to challenge the Impugned Order dated 04.10.2021, whereby, the Ld. Adjudicating Authority had not confirmed the Provisional Attachment Order ("PAO") dated 14.02.2020. It was held in the Provisional Attachment Order that the movable property comprising of gold bars having gross weight of 1500 gms (value Rs. 46,50,000/-) which were found and seized from Locker No. 197, maintained at H.U. Vaults, Maskasath, Itwari, Nagpur, Ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gold bars. Moreover, the gold bars were found bearing foreign markings "VALCCAMBI SUISSE", which is of Switzerland based gold refinery. 6. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant relied on the statement of Shri Prakash Katta, Proprietor, M/s Katta Jewellers which was recorded under Section 131 of the Income Tax Act, wherein, he denied to have converted any gold jewellery to gold bullion/biscuits for the Respondent. Ld. Counsel further relied on the recorded statement of Shri Sachin Mulchandji Katta, brother of the deceased Shri Rajendra Katta, Proprietor, M/s Maa Bhawani Jewellers. Shri Sachin had denied that any bills were ever issued by M/s Maa Bhawani Jewellers to the Respondent. Shri Sachin further stated that his elder brother, Shri Rajendra ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....one any melting work for Benamidar." 9. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant pleaded that the Ld. Adjudicating Authority wrongly relied on the deeming provision of Section 69A of the Income Tax Act. Ld. Counsel argued that the PBPTA and The Income Tax Act operate on different planes and are mutually exclusive, and therefore the findings of the Assessing Officer under the Income Tax Act should not be read in the PBPTA proceedings. Ld. Counsel argued that Ld. Adjudicating Authority erred in law by treating the Benamidar as the true owner of the Benami Property. 10. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant pleaded to allow the appeal and set aside the order of the Ld. Adjudicating Authority whereby, the Provisional Attachment Order dated 14.02.2020 was no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... M/s Katta Jewellers is of no significance as the gold jewellery was melted by another jeweller M/s Maa Bhawani Jewellers. 14. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent argued that the factum of legal ownership over the gold bars is proved from the fact that an Income Tax Addition has been made under Section 69A of The Income Tax Act, 1961 through Income Tax Returns filed by the Respondent. The provisions of Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as follows: "Where in any financial year the assessee is found to be the owner of any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article and such money, bullion, jewellery or valuable article is not recorded in the books of account, if any, maintained by him for any source of income, and the ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d the payment receipts of the hired lockers, we observe that the records mention the name of the Respondent Shri Umesh Bhati. 17. We observe that the Respondent has consistently claimed that the source of the gold bars has been family jewellery inherited by the Respondent which has merely changed its form after melting. On perusal of the payment receipts issued by M/s Maa Bhawani Jewellers, we observe that they contain the name of Umesh Bhati and list the particulars of the jewellery given for conversion to gold bars. 18. On perusal of the specific findings of the Ld. Adjudicating Authority, that the Respondent herein was not provided with copies of the statements recoded by Shri Prakash Katta and Shri Sachin Katta, we observe that wi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o prove the hiring of the Locker at HU Vaults are bogus as these bear the names of two persons, Vikas and Sumit. The Appellant has failed to identify these two persons named Sumit and Vikas, and have also failed to attribute a role to these two persons as to their connection either to the hired lockeror to the present benami proceedings. 21. We note that the Ld. Adjudicating Authority has observed that Respondent had made declaration as to the possession of the Gold Bars before the Assessing Officer under the Income Tax Act, which was acknowledged by the IO. Under the present facts and circumstances, wherein about 1.5 Kg of gold bullion was recovered from the locker held and operated by the Respondent who has given the explanation as to ....