TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 1247
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2712320004125) ii. ICICI Bank (A/c No. 629405040506) iii. CITI Bank (A/c No. 0875075225) iv. AXIS Bank (A/c No. 916020049718698) v. SBI Bank (A/c No. 39313318668) 2. A reference F. No. DCIT BP Unit-2/Benami/Bajaj 'Group/2024-25 dated 08.07.2024 was made by the Initiating Officer, BP Unit-2, Mumbai u/s 24(5) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Act, 1988 (PBPT Act) wherein it was claimed that M/s Surge Ahead Solutions Private Limited was the Benamidar and M/s Bajaj Capital Insurance Broking Limited was the Beneficial Owner. The above mentioned properties were attached as Benami properties. 3. The facts of the case revealed the modus operandi of the operation. IRDAI regulations prescribe a limit on the maximum amount of commission payments that can be paid by the insurance companies to the insurance intermediaries for procuring and soliciting of insurance policies. Any entity used by the insurance intermediaries to receive the Over Riding Commission ("ORC") payments on behalf of insurance intermediaries from insurance companies are termed as Nominees'. So, Insurance companies in connivance with insurance intermediaries us....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 4. It was also revealed that the "Surge" was operating from the same office premise and it was merely separated through a partition from the office of BCL/ BCFSL. The so-called directors of the company, Mr. Kuldeep Singh Rana and Mr. Vikas Malhotra had cubicle cabin inside the office of BCL and BCFSL office space. This shows that the directors of "Surge" are primarily employees of Bajaj group. The majority shareholder of "Surge" is Mrs. Deepa Ahuja who is an NRI. It was also found that she has never visited the office of the company and had never handled business affairs of the company. It was also found that she was not even authorized to make payments. Based on seized material and statement recorded during the search and post search, the following observation have been made. It was revealed that the directors of Bajaj Group were forced to resign and made directors of "Surge". The directors are not giving approval for release of payments and all invoices are approved by the Bajaj group. It was also found that the director of "Surge" looks after the personal account of Bajaj family and make payment as and when directed by the Bajaj family. It was found that the so-called directo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... five bank accounts of M/s Surge Ahead Solution Private Limited in the attachment order, he was unaware of the actual status of these accounts at the time the order was issued. It was discovered during the proceedings that three of these accounts had already been closed prior to the issuance of the attachment order by the IO. Hence, the Ld. AA did not hold the said property as benami. Submissions of the Appellant: 8. The Ld. Counsel for the Appellant argued that the Ld. AA failed to consider that that "Surge" was operating from the same office premise and it was merely separated through a partition from the office of BCL/ BCFSL. The directors of the company, Mr. Kuldeep Singh Rana and Mr. Vikas Malhotra had cubicle cabins inside the office of BCL and BCFSL office space. Thus, the directors of "Surge" are primarily employees of Bajaj group. Moreover, the majority shareholder of "Surge" as on date is Mrs. Deepa Ahuja who is an NRI who never visited the office of the company and had never handled business affairs of the company. She was not even authorized to make payments. The directors of Bajaj Group were made to resign and installed as directors of "Surge". They cannot give a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Section 2(9)(A) of the PBPT Act, 1988 are not attracted as the alleged transactions are not covered under the definition of Section 2((9)(A) of the PBPT Act, 1988. Findings & Analysis: 11. We have heard the arguments by both the parties and perused the material on record. The primary legal issue present before the Tribunal is whether the IO has successfully discharged the statutory burden upon him under Section 2(9) read with Sections 23 and 24 of the PBPTA, 1988, in order to establish that M/s Surge Ahead Solutions Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Bajaj Capital Insurance Broking Ltd. are the benamidar and beneficial owner respectively and whether the attached bank accounts are benami properties. 12. On examination of the materials on record, we find that the case of the IO rests upon the fact that operational, managerial, and financial affairs of "Surge" were controlled by the Bajaj Group and that the two entities also shared common office premises and employees and had a centralized payroll and HR functions and that the directors of "Surge" practiced limited financial control and used the email domain of the Bajaj Group, routing funds to Bajaj Group entities. The IO also alleged tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion. The case of the Initiating Officer is largely depending on the irregularities or illegalities of certain transactions of the incumbent parties. This Authority has no jurisdiction to examine such allegations and to make any findings on the same. Such aspects are always open for examination by the Insurance Regulatory Authority or any other Authority and the findings in this order under the PBPT Act shall have no bearing on such proceedings and this order is being passed without prejudice to any such matters." 16. The Adjudicating Authority finally concluded that: "6.15. It is hereby concluded that the burden of proof has not been satisfactorily discharged by the Initiating Officer as per of the requirements set forth under the provisions of the PBPT Act. The matter before me is to assess whether the case falls within the scope and ambit of the PBPT Act. The allegations raised by the Initiating Officer concerning overriding commission and any other violations, if applicable, do not fall within the purview of these proceedings and remain subject to adjudication by the relevant authorities in accordance with the law. This order shall have no effect on such matters." ....