2026 (1) TMI 735

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....to the SOG Police Station, GIDC, Vapi. His statement was recorded. It was stated that he is working for an angadiya M/s V Patel located in Gujarat. The cash amounting to Rs. 26,50,000/- found in his possession was collected by him from three angadiyas of Vapi namely: Sr. No. Names of the Angadiya Amount (Rs.) 1. Arvind Kantila & Co. 3,90,000 2. Ishwarbhai Somabhai & Co. 21,00,000 3 P. Maganlal & Sons 1,60,000   Total 26,50,000 3. A search was thereupon conducted under section 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It was at the premises of P. Maganlal & Sons. During the search, cash amounting to Rs. 13,00,400/ was found at the office of M/s P. Maganlal & Sons. The statement of the manager of P. Maganlal & Sons was recorded who provided names of the customers paid cash to the extent of Rs. 5,08,000/-. The remaining amount of Rs. 7,92,400/- was cash in hand. No details or the address of the customers could be furnished. It was stated that no regular books of accounts are maintained by M/s P. Maganlal & Sons for the business activity. Shri Jitendra Ishwarlal Patel, in charge of the operations at the office of M/s P. Maganlal & Sons faile....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t Express. Thus, the Act of 1988 could not have been applied. Therefore, on the aforesaid ground also, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant did not raise any other argument despite an opportunity and called upon by the Tribunal. The learned counsel recorded his satisfaction to the arguments raised by him and has been referred above. Submissions of the Respondent 10. The counsel for the respondent made elaborate arguments to contest the appeal. It would be referred while recording the finding in reference to each issue raised by the appellant. It is to avoid repetition of the one and same facts and for the sake of brevity. Findings of the Tribunal 11. The facts on the record shows that the cash amounting to 26,50,000/ was recovered by the Flying squad from Mr. Rajesh Rasiklal Shah. He was working for an angadiya firm M/s V. Patel. A survey under section 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was thereupon was conducted at the premises of P. Maganlal & Sons situated in Gujarat. During the course of said search, cash amounting to a total of Rs. 13,00,400/ was found at the office premises of the firm. The statement of the Manage....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....andate for it under section 24(1) of the Act. 14. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the show cause notice was issued by the Initiating Officer without independent application of mind and satisfaction. We find this argument to be devoid of merits and contrary to the record, as the show cause notice itself reflects due consideration of the statements and material gathered during the course of the proceedings, demonstrating independent satisfaction of the IO, as required under the Act. 15. Another argument advanced by the appellant is that the activities of angadiya business are similar to those of Government based-owned post offices or licensed courier services including entities such as DHL and Blue Dart and therefore the provisions of the Act are not applicable. We find this submission to be wholly misconceived. 16. The facts and circumstances of the case of M/s P. Maganlal & Sons are entirely distinguishable from those of licensed courier companies or post offices. A legitimate courier service necessarily maintains records of the articles being transported, the name and address of the sender, and the name and address of the recipient. In the present ca....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of property and identification of benami transactions. A finding under the Income Tax Act, therefore, does not ipso facto preclude or conclude proceedings under the PBPT Act. 21. In the present case, although the CIT(A) accepted a part of the explanation of the appellant for income-tax purposes, M/s P. Maganlal & Sons has consistently denied ownership of the cash in question for the purposes of the PBPT Act, while simultaneously failing to establish conclusively as to who the real owner of the said cash is. Thus, even before the CIT(A), the appellant did not come forward with a clear and consistent explanation regarding the ownership of the cash, which is the central requirement under the PBPT Act. 22. It is also pertinent to note that the appellant has failed to furnish conclusive evidence regarding the ownership of the cash allegedly belonging to third parties and cash in hand. The explanations furnished were limited to incomplete names, Aadhaar cards, mobile numbers, and temporary handwritten chits prepared by its employees, which do not constitute reliable or legally admissible proof of ownership. No books of account was shown to establish cash in hand. 23. With respe....