TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (1) TMI 1665
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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, Maharashtraare Benami Property under Section 2(8) of the PBPTA. 3. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant pleaded that the Ld. Adjudicating Authority had wrongly not confirmed the Provisional Attachment Order on an erroneous interpretation of law and facts. Ld. Counsel argued that from the facts of the case, the reasonable inference would be that the Benamidar, Shri Umesh Jugalkishore Bhati had engaged in Benami Transactions as defined under Section 2(9)(D) of the PBPTA with a beneficial owner who is not traceable or is fictitious. 4. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant pleaded that the Respondent lacked the financial wherewithal to hold gold bars having gross weight of 1500 gmswith the value of Rs. 46,50,000/-. The Respondent was in the business of daily needs such as Papad, Phenyl, Mukhwas, Brush etc. He was residing in a rented house approx. area 150-200 sq metre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... actually found i.e 1.5 Kg and 2.5 Kg. 2. Failure to explain the acquisition of the gold bars and biscuits since Benamidarfailed to provide document for gold jewellery being melted and any other document to explain acquisition of gold jewellery. 3. Even though Benamidar claimed that the said gold bars and biscuits were obtained after melting the old jewellery from M/s Katta jewellers. The proprietor of M/s Katta Jewellers, Shri. Prakash K Katta refused having done 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 Attachm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....able article, or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the Assessing] Officer, satisfactory, the money and the value of the bullion, jewellery or other valuable article may be deemed to be the income of the assessee for such financial year." Ld. Counsel argued that the Initiating Officer (IO) had admitted that addition under Section 69A has already been made in the hand of the Respondent. The observations and findings to the same effect have been recorded by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority in his order. Therefore, Ld. Counsel pleaded to dismiss the present appeal and confirm the Impugned Order. 15. We have considered the rival submissions and the material on record. Based on the pleadings, we observe that the main issue for consideration before us, is that, whether the Benamidar was engaged in Benami Transaction(s) within the import of Section 2(9)(D) of the PBPTA with a beneficial owner who is not traceable or is fictitious? 16. Based on the records present before us, we observe that the Respondent has consistently claimed that that he was the hirer of the locker maintained at H.U. Vaults, Maskasath, Itwari, Nagpur, Maharashtra, and the Respondent is the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ipts produced by the Respondent to 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 its origin from conversion of the jewellery of his family which is into the business of trading and selling of items of domestic needs, this addition in his hands during the Income Tax Assessment supports the contention of the Respondent. 22. We would refer to the decision of the Co-Ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the matter of DCIT (BPU-I), Mumbai versus Shri Jiten Pujari & Ors, FPA- PBPT-2204/MUM/2022 date....