TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 58
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....account and PAN Bank Name and Account No. Amount (In Rs. ) 1. M/s Sugee Developers IDBI Bank A/c No. 0579102000007146 To the extent of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- 2. During the arguments, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that as per allegation of the Initiating Officer, huge demonetized currency was deposited in the accounts of Benamidars namely- M/s Altimax Venture Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Homeground Marketing Pvt. Ltd., for sum of Rs. 8,65,14,500 and Rs. 2,32,99,000 respectively, total amounting to Rs. 10,98,13,500/-, as mentioned at Page 4 of the impugned order. Thereafter, part of the said amount amounting to Rs. 1,00,00,000 was transferred to the account of present appellant M/s Sugee Developer, one of the alleged Beneficial Owner, in IDBI Bank A/c No. 0579102000007146 from the account of M/s Altimax Venture Pvt. Ltd.. The remaining amount was transferred by the benamidar companies to the other entities, as mentioned at Page 4 & 5 of the impugned order. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that they have not given any demonetized currency to the said two benamidars, as alleged by the Initiating Officer, and in fact, the appellant company received the loan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rgued Mr. Manjeet Singh Khalsa was never summoned, nor examined, nor investigated, nor made a party to the reference by the IO. He remains a mystery in the transaction. Moreover, the statements of Kundan Bhingarde & Heman Parikh show that they were dummy directors acting on instructions of Satish Pujari & hence this Satish Pujari becomes a crucial link to establish the veracity of their claims. He contended that the only evidence of the IO/AA against the Appellant is the statements of certain alleged Directors and there is no other evidence besides these statements. All investigations by the IO stop here, without digging the true facts. Out of these, the statement of Kamal Singh was not produced at the IO level, nor at the AA level and it has for the first time featured in the reply dt: 08.02.2024 in the Appellate proceedings. Hence it is additional evidence and not admissible. He contended that the Appellant's name has not been taken by the name- lending Directors/ex-Directors of the Benamidar Company i.e. Heman Parikh, Kundan Bhingarde & Kamal Singh in their initial statements recorded on different dates. In fact, Heman Parikh has stated at Q. No. 22 (Statement dt: 14.06.2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....15 to 20.06.2016 from 25.08.2016 to 28.10.2016 & from 04.04.2017 to 03.07.2017. Thus, Mr. Kundan Bhingarde was a mere 3rd Party and this was even pointed out by the Appellant vide its letter dt: 26-8-2019 to the IO & hence his statements hold no value. Further, he pointed out that the IO & Adjudicating Authority has ignored the Loan Agreement dt: 19-11-2016, the Affidavit of the Broker (Mr. Pradeep Sawant) dt: 30-7-2019 & the TDS certificate dt: 10-12-2020 of the Brokerage payment which were critical evidences to justify the genuineness of the transaction. The AA states (as already stated by the IO) that there is no Agreement signed by the Broker & no payment of commission made or TDS deducted. The IO/AA fail to note the fact that the investment deal was done through the Broker (Mr. Pradeep Sawant), which fact was mentioned in the Loan Agreement of 19.11.2016 and following the generation of Broker Invoice dt: 30.03.2020, and on account of the commission, payment of Rs. 1 lakh was made by the Appellant on 24.08.02021 (after deduction of TDS, with TDS Certificate dt: 10-12-2020 duly generated) and much of this was filed before the AA. Also, the IO did not summon the broker and did....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The Appellant had made an Application u/s 26(6) of the PBPT Act, which sought to make 16 persons Kundan Bhingarde, Heman Parikh, Kamal Singh & the other alleged Directors of the Benamidar Company, as "Benamidars" and Satish Pujari and shareholders (including Garodia family as per ROC records) of the Benamidar Company as "Beneficial Owners" and thus Party to the Proceedings. In fact, Kundan Bhingarde, Heman Parikh, Kamal Singh had themselves accepted on oath that they were merely "name lending" Directors of the Benamidar Company, which means that they have openly admitted to being the Benamidars of Satish Pujari and/or the actual shareholders/related entities of the Benamidar Company passing a speaking order and only by making a casual remark (without any explanation) stated that the Appellant has to provide valid, sustainable and convincing grounds for Sec 26(6) and rejected this Application. He stated that it is a valid sustainable ground that these persons have themselves admitted that they are Benamidars and solely on basis of their statement, this Reference case has been developed by the IO. A draft copy of the Application u/s 26(6) which was filed by the Appellant before the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of the defendant during the hearing that the commission has been paid recently, it is not a proven fact, hence, it is just an afterthought arrangement to create defence. The appellant has not produced valid documents regarding the loan agreement as the same is not duly stamped and notarised. Also, the appellant's contention regarding the broker's affidavit after a period of 3 years from the loan agreement seems to be vague, as he in-fact preferred to abandon his small commission from the appellant, until the present proceedings were initiated almost 3 years from the transaction. Ld. Counsel for the respondent contended that Shri. Satish Pujari is not traceable, nor contactable on mobile. No prudent person would lend an amount of Rs. 1 crore to someone and then never contact the debtor and even become untraceable. This has exposed the whole story about Sh. Satish Pujari being introduced by a broker Pradeep Sawant as being an afterthought strategy and being an imaginary & unacceptable. Also, the appellant had the sources to know the of doing the recce on the parties with whom they deal. Prayer is accordingly made to dismiss the present appeal being devoid of any merits. 4. The I....