TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 1685
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2. A search and seizure under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted in reference to M/s SM Consultants group on 20.10.2016. The group was headed by Sh. Soumendra Kumar Mohanty. He was controlling all business activities of the group. During the course of search, documents relating to many properties were found and seized. It was from the residential premises of Soumendra Kumar Mohanty. The verification of those documents revealed involvement of large number of land purchase in the name of various persons of the group. It was largely in the name of Sh. Gagan Bihari Malik and accordingly land documents pertaining to 61 properties were seized. 3. The list of the family members of Soumendra Kumar Mohanty along with the land acquired in the name of Gagan Bihari Mallik was recovered from the residential premises of Sh. Soumendra Kumar Mohanty. On verification of the details of Gagan Bihari Malik, it was revealed that he was not holding PAN, rather filed ITR for the first time for the financial years 2018-19 relevant to Assessment Year 2019-20 on 04.12.2019 disclosing his total income to of be Rs. 3,68,000/-. He was not an income tax payee prior to the aforesaid. His....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me of Gagan Bihari Malik so as to pass on the land to State of Orissa. In fact, after acquiring certain landed properties, it was given to the State of Orissa. However, before all the landed properties could have been given to the State of Orissa, the respondents initiate the process and provisionally attached the properties presuming it to be out of the benami transaction. 7. The learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that all the landed properties were acquired much prior to the amendment in the Act of 1988 by way of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 (in short, "Amending Act of 2016"). The definition of benami property was amended by the Amending Act, 2016. It was not applicable to the present case because all the properties were purchased by the appellants much prior to the amendment and thereby respondents grossly erred in taking it to be a case of benami transaction under section 2(9)(A) of the Amending Act of 2016. 8. On the aforesaid ground also, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 9. The learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that the appellants prayed for a copy of the appraisal report of the IO to find ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ari Malik was having no means to acquire the 61 landed properties worth of Rs. 66,57,140/-. He was not even income tax payee till the financial year 2018-19 when for the first time he submitted income tax return disclosing his income of Rs. 3,68,000/-. The purchase of land was much prior to the aforesaid. It is coupled with the fact that source of the fund was Sh. Soumendra Kumar Mohanty of M/s SM Consultants and accordingly he was taken to be the beneficiary owner. After causing notice under section 24(1) followed by section 24(3), the provisional attachment order was passed and sent to the Adjudicating Authority for its confirmation. Challenge to the impugned orders has been made by the appellants raising factual and legal issues which would be dealt with by us. 16. The learned counsel for the appellants challenged the impugned order holding a case of benami transaction. According to the appellants, no element of benami transaction exist in this case. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that land was purchased in the name of Gagan Bihari Malik only for the reason that it was to be transferred to State of Orissa as per the agreement between SM Consultants/ Soumendr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the name of the employee, Gagan Bihari Malik and it has already been noted that the benamidar was having no means to purchase the property thus, we find satisfaction of the ingredients of section 2(9)(A) of the Act of 1988 as amended by the Amending Act 2016. 19. The issue now remains about invocation of section 2(9)(A) of the Amending Act, 2016. According to the appellants, the properties were purchased prior to the Amending Act of 2016 thus could not have been governed by giving it retrospective effect to the amendment. The amendment should operate prospectively and therefore the respondents wrongly invoked section 2(9)(A) for causing provisional attachment. It was further submitted that even if section 2(9)(A) is made applicable retrospectively, then also its need satisfaction to the condition of transfer or/and "held". The condition of transfer got satisfied prior to the amendment. Thus, it cannot be invoked and if it is, governed by applying word "held", it could not have been applied in a case of transfer earlier. Both the words "transfer" and "held" can not apply together. 20. We don't find any force in the argument. The interpretation taken by the appellants is no....