AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 1493
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....garwal has made arrangement to acquire two immovable properties in one single deed in the name of Shri Shiv Shankar. The entire consideration was paid by Smt. Priti Agarwal directly from her bank account to sellers, Shri Ram Prasad, Smt. Ganesha Devi, Shri Mool Chand and Shri Kishan Lal. It was also noticed that Shri Shiv Shankar has not made any investment rather not a single penny was routed through his bank account. The transaction between Smt. Priti Agarwal and the sellers took place between May 2019 to July 2019 whereas the bank account in the name of Shri Shiv Shankar was opened in the year 2020. At the time of purchase of the property, Shri Shiv Shankar was domestic servant of Shri Sameer Agarwal and Smt. Priti Agarwal. 3. After purchase of agriculture land, it was got converted to make it non-agriculture lands. It was thereupon sub-plotted and sold directly by Smt. Priti Agarwal using the Power of Attorney of Shri Shiv Shankar. She had even purchased 920 sq. meter land from Shri Shiv Shankar for a consideration of Rs. 60 lakhs said to have been paid through 11 cheques. It was, however, found that the cheques mentioned in the Deed were for the namesake only and were never....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Ld. Counsel for the appellant made elaborate argument by making a reference of Section 2(9)(A) of the Act of 1988. It is to indicate as to when a case of benami transaction can be made out. It is with further reference to the facts to show that the case does not fall under Section 2(9)(A) of the Act of 1988. A further reference to Section 2(9)(D) of the Act of 1988 was given with the indication as to when a case of benami transaction would be made out under the said provision. 8. Ld. Counsel for the appellant further stated that the burden of proof of benami transaction lies on the Department and not on the appellant. It is with the further statement that the property was purchased by Shri Shiv Shankar vide Sale Deed dated 12.04.1990 by making payment to four sellers and only part of the consideration was paid by Smt. Priti Agarwal. As per the statements of the four sellers, the property was handed over to Shri Shiv Shankar and Shri Sameer Agarwal and not to Smt. Priti Agarwal. Thus, a case of benami transaction was not made out. 9. Ld. Counsel for the appellant raised another issue for challenge to the impugned order in reference to denial of opportunity of cross- examinatio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....garwal. It was even without transferring the money to the purchaser, Shri Shiv Shankar and then to make the payment to the seller by him. Rather, in the instant case, the payment of consideration for purchase of property was directly made by the appellant, Smt. Priti Agarwal. It is coupled with the fact that Shri Shiv Shankar was of a little means to purchase the property for a valuable consideration. 14. During the course of inquiry, the statements of Shri Shiv Shankar and even sellers were recorded. The statements of aforesaid were sufficient to substantiate the allegation of benami transaction and otherwise corroborative in nature because the bank statement of Smt. Priti Agarwal to pay the consideration was the first limb to prove benami transaction because consideration was paid directly to the sellers but land was registered in the name of Shri Shiv Shankar who did not pay the consideration. The first limb of the definition of Section 2(9)(A) of the Act of 1988 was made out. The second limb is about future benefit of the beneficial owner. In this case, after conversion of land, it was divided into plots and sale consideration was received by the appellant, Smt. Priti Agarwa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ke out a case of benami transaction. It is coupled with the bank statement to show payment of consideration for purchase of property by the appellant, Smt. Priti Agarwal. Thus, we do not find any force in the argument of the Ld. Counsel for the appellant to allege that the benami transaction is not made out under Section 2(9)(A) of the Act of 1988. 18. The issues now remain about the denial of opportunity of cross- examination. It is submitted that despite a mandate of law to provide cross-examination of a person whose statements are going to be relied, the appellant was denied an opportunity for cross- examination. We find that the issue aforesaid has been taken into consideration by the Adjudicating Authority elaborately relying on the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Harivallabh Mohanlal Joshi (supra). The appellant was given many opportunities but she failed to avail it. The relevant para of the said judgment is quoted herein for ready reference: "17. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court as well as other High Court, as quoted above, I am of the opinion that that the right to cross-examine cannot be considered to be an integral pa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....name of Shri Shiv Shankar S/o Shri Putti Lal vide Registration Deed dated 12.04.2019 as no permission was required from District Magistrate for acquiring land in his name. Perusal of the Registration Deed dated 12.04.2019 reveals that a consideration amount of Rs. 29.50 lakh was provided by Shri Shiv Shankar vide four cheques and one demand draft, On examining the sale deed vis-à-vis bank statements of Smt. Priti Agarwal and the four sellers of the land, it was found that the cheques and the demand draft as mentioned in the deed were directly credited from the bank account of Smt. Priti Agarwal to the sellers account instead from the account of the purchaser of the land i.e. Shiv Shankar. It is seen that not a single rupee has been routed through Shiv Shankar's bank account, Interestingly, the bank account of Shri Shiv Shankar was opened in the year 2020 whereas the transactions between Smt. Priti Agarwal & four sellers. took place in the month of May 2019 to July 2019.This shows that only the name and identity of Shri Shiv Shankar has been used, whereas the person who was carrying out the transactions was someone else, Smt. Priti Agarwal (D-2) in this case. The argument....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nsidered to be an integral part of the principle of natural justice, however, it is open for the authority to examine the available circumstances and if deems fit, the opportunity to cross-examine can be provided, but not as a matter of right." In the present case the defendants have not availed multiple opportunities provided by the IO as well the undersigned. Hence, as regards the contention in this context that the defendant was not provided with the opportunity of cross-examination, I agree with the Initiating Officer that ample opportunities were provided to D-2 to cross-examine D-1. Further, in the case of Kanungo & Co. Vs. Collector of Customs, Calcutta [1983 (13) ELT 1486 (SC)], Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that natural justice is not violated if the person, who gives confessions, it not allowed to cross-examination. This stand was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Surjeet Singh Chabra Vs. UOI [1997 (89) ELT b46 (SC)). I may mention here that the Income Tax Officers are not the Police Officers." 21. The last issue remains about the attachment of the amount of Rs. 97.36 lakhs for which no show-cause notice was given. Ld. Counsel for the respondent made a r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he appellant to the seller of the land yet show cause notice was caused to the appellant Sameer Agarwal followed by confirmation of the provisional attachment of the amount in the hands of the appellant. When the appellant was not involved in the benami transaction, rather the allegation was made mainly against Smt. Priti Agarwal though she was also not involved in the benami transaction, provisional attachment of the property of the appellant could not have been caused by the respondents. In view of the above, this Tribunal may cause interference in the impugned order vis-à-vis the appellant Sameer Agarwal. 27. The appeal has been contested by the respondents. It is submitted that after transfer of the consideration by Smt. Priti Agarwal directly to the bank account of the seller, the sale deed was registered in favour of the benamidar Shri Shiv Shankar. Immediately after purchase of the land by Smt. Priti Agarwal in the name of Shri Shiv Shankar, it was divided into plots after conversion and thereupon consideration of the sale proceeds was mainly received by Smt. Priti Agarwal and some part of it by Shri Shiv Shankar. The benamidar Shri Shiv Shankar transferred Rs. 1,0....