TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 57
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ation, an enquiry was conducted from various agencies/offices. The details of properties, bank accounts, data from MP Bhulekh and the property records were gathered. Based on the information and the analysis of the data revealed that land along with resort near Pench Tiger Reserve was purchased in the name of the appellant, Shri Khajji Singh Thakur on 14.01.2022 for a consideration of Rs. 95,33,110/- (inclusive of stamp duty). The consideration was directly paid by Mohd. Afzal Abubaker Ahmed Mitha through his firm M/s Hotel Orient Star, Nagpur to the seller of the benami property. The deed was registered in the name of the appellant, Shri Khajji Singh Thakur. He did not pay any consideration for purchase of the property under attachment. On the enquiry from the Revenue/ Registrar authorities, it was confirmed that purchase of the subject property has been made by Shri Khajji Singh Thakur in his personal name as per the deed. The money trail for the transaction demonstrated payment of consideration was by Mohd. Afzal Abubaker Ahmed Mitha, the beneficial owner through his firm M/s Hotel Orient Star. It was sufficient to prove that for purchase of property, consideration was paid by t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ip Deed where the appellant was taken as partner of the firm. It may be to the extent of 1% share. In pursuance of the Partnership Deed, the property in question was to be used to run the resort. The appellant was one of the partners of the firm, thus, it could not have been taken to be a case of benami transaction. The reconstitution of the partnership was made on 23.12.2021 and purchase of the property was on 14.01.2022. Thus, on the date of execution of the deed for transfer of property, the appellant was already a partner of the firm and therefore the transaction could not have been taken to be a benami in nature even if the consideration was paid by others. 9. The appellant had given the following submissions before the Adjudicating Authority and brief facts in reference to it are quoted hereunder: - "BO 1 (D2) i.e. Mohd. Afzal Abubaker Ahmed Mitha had entered into agreement on behalf BO 2 (D3) i.e. M/s. Hotel Orient Star, a partnership firm wherein BO 1 is the managing partner, with M/s. Reliable Multipurpose Work for purchase of the resort in Pench (Madhya Pradesh) namely Tiger Valley Resort. The said resort was built by Reliable Multipurpose Works on the land be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s for the FY 2021-22 is attached herewith for your honors kind perusal and records. Khajji Singh Thakur (Benamidar) never denied about the ownership or his unawareness about the land held in his name. Further nowhere any of the respondents had claimed that the sale consideration was paid by Khajji Singh Thakur. It is also stated that Khajji Singh Thakur is holding 1% ownership in the entire firm with the understanding that he is very much eligible for the profit as well as Salary if he works for the firm at the resort. The purchase deed was registered in Khajji Singh Thakur name since he being Tribal and was eligible for purchase of land and due to constraint in law i.e. as per section 165(6) of Madhya Pradesh Land Reverse Code, 1959 and the construction attached to that land needs to be registered alongwith the land only as such the entire purchase was registered in his name. However, if your honor on perusal of the payment schedule would appraise that the value of construction was paid to the seller who is non tribal & partner of the firm the said fact is also duly disclosed in the registered sale deed The intention of the all the parties was very clear and transparent a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....chase of property in name of Tribal is duly explained above and moreover for the upliftment of that Tribal he had been moae 1% Partner in the firm without any contribution and in addition to this he will paid salary for work he does in the resort." 10. The appellant has given justification for purchase of the property in the name of the appellant, a tribal who was otherwise partner of the firm running a resort on the land in question, therefore, the order of the Adjudicating Authority has been questioned. 11. Ld. Counsel for the appellant referred the impugned order to show finding recorded contrary to the documents and submitted that the Adjudicating Authority has recorded its finding that the reconstitution of the Partnership Deed was not signed by the appellant in ignorance of the fact that the signature of the appellant exists in the reconstitution of the Partnership Deed and therefore perverse finding of fact has been recorded by the Adjudicating Authority. In fact, the appellant had signed the reconstitution of the deed of the partnership which is coming out on the face of record, thus, Adjudicating Authority passed the order casually going contrary to the documentary e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eneficial owner to the seller of the land. The consideration was not paid by the benamidar appellant. The factual part of this could not be disputed by the appellant, who was not otherwise having means to purchase land involving total consideration of Rs. 95,33,110/-. The purchase of land was taken to be out of benami transaction for the reason that consideration of the land was paid by the beneficial owner. The details of the payment made by the beneficial owner directly to the seller has been indicated and could not be disputed by the appellant. 16. According to the appellant, it was not involving benami transaction for the reason that prior to the payment of consideration, he became partner of the firm for which a reconstitution Deed of Partnership was entered into. Being a partner of the firm, amount of consideration was paid by the firm or the promoter of the firm, hence it could not have been taken to be a case of benami transaction. It is with further argument that the impugned order has recorded perverse finding, thus, interference be caused. It is on the ground that despite the signature of the appellant on the reconstitution Deed of Partnership, the finding has been re....