TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 1207
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....PBPT-4816/HYD/2023 (Stay) FPA-PBPT-3235/HYD/2023, MP-PBPT-4817/HYD/2023 (Stay) FPA-PBPT-3236/HYD/2023, MP-PBPT-4818/HYD/2023 (Stay) FPA-PBPT-3237/HYD/2023, MP-PBPT-4819/HYD/2023 (Stay) FPA-PBPT-3238/HYD/2023, MP-PBPT-4820/HYD/2023 (Stay) FPA-PBPT-3239/HYD/2023, MP-PBPT-4821/HYD/2023 (Stay) FPA-PBPT-3240/HYD/2023 and MP-PBPT-4822/HYD/2023 (Stay) FPA-PBPT-3241/HYD/2023 JUSTICE MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI AND SHRI G. C. MISHRA For the Appellants : Mr. Amol Sinha, Advocate (for Sr. no. 1-2) & Mr. V. Prasanth M., Advocate (for Sr. no. 3-11) For the Respondents : Mr. Manmeet S. Arora, S.P.P, Mr. Camran Iqbal and Mr. Kartik Gupta, Advocates FINAL ORDER The batch of appeals under Section 46(1) of the Prohibition of Benami Property ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....titious and thereby it is taken to be a case of benami transaction naming the benamidar for which consideration was paid by the fictitious person or is not traceable. 4. The properties were provisionally attached after a show cause notice and on reference it was adjudicated by the Adjudicating Authority. The show cause notice was caused initially by the Initiating Officer invoking Section 24(1) of the Act of 1988. The appellant Gunda Akhil Kumar and his wife Smt. Nishika Gehlot filed reply to the show cause notice. It is stated that the purchase of the property was made in public auction by the DRT and the amount was paid out of the loan obtained from M/s Star Capita, a money lending firm. It was routed through the banking channel,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as confirmed and aggrieved by the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority, present appeals have been filed. 8. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the extension of loan for purchase of the property would not make out a case of benami transaction. However, ignoring the aforesaid, finding has been recorded by the Adjudicating Authority adverse to the appellants. It was also submitted that the person standing in a fiduciary capacity is excluded from the definition of benami transaction under Section 2(9)(A) of the Act of 1988. However, the respondents caused notice under Section 2(9)(D) of the Act of 1988. 9. The respondents erroneously made allegation against the appellants for managing the affairs of M/s Star Capit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the property in auction. They said to have taken loan from M/s Star Capita, a company said to be under the control of the relatives of Gunda Akhil Kumar and Smt. Nishika Gehlot and the property was registered in the name of their own company. 13. The appellants disclosed the source for making payment of the consideration for purchase of the property. The amount of consideration was obtained as loan from M/s Star Capita and the payment was made through banking channel thus it was submitted that no element of benami transaction is made out. However, on a close scrutiny of the case, it was found that there exists loan sanction order between M/s Star Capita and Gunda Akhil Kumar dated 18.04.2018 followed by loan sanction letter dated 18.04.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....any running in the premises. In any case, it was found that it was for the first time that M/s Star Capita was used by Gunda Akhil Kumar to purchase the property at Hyderabad for a sum of Rs. 46 Crores and later on provisionally attached under the Act of 1988. Mr. Gunda Akhil Kumar submitted that his company M/s GAK E Solution Pvt. Ltd. had availed loan from M/s Star Capita to purchase the property. As per the audited financials of M/s GAK E Solution Pvt. Ltd. as on 03.01.2023, the payables to M/s Star Capita under the head of "other current liabilities" were Rs. 37,69,455/-. Rs. 38,92,54,862/- and Rs. 38,82,65,289/- for the Financial Year 2019-20, 2020-21 and 2021-22 by the companies named ab....