AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (4) TMI 1769
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Alekshendra Sharma Mr. Subhan Sankar Gogai For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Manmeet S. Arora, SPP Mr. Yash Batra, Advocate ORDER A batch of three appeals has been filed to challenge the order dated 14.02.2022 passed by the Adjudicating Authority, PBPTA, Delhi confirming the attachment of property and answering the reference made by the Initiating Officer. Brief facts of the case: 2. It is a case where a search and seizure operation was conducted at 508, Leela Palace, Tilak Nagar, Kanpur on 18.04.2017 by the Income Tax Investigation Wing, Kanpur. The cash amount for Rs. 1,23,63,000/- was found and seized. Smt. Sunita Verma and Shri D.K. Verma tried to distance themselves from the cash and shifted the onus on Smt. Maya Verma (mothe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... without any material on record, the cash and jewellery was treated to be benami property without a benami transaction. The Initiating Officer as well as the Adjudicating Authority failed to appreciate the arguments raised by the Counsel for the appellants and thereby the order of attachment of the property and so as its confirmation has been passed erroneously. 6. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that so far as jewellery found with the appellant - Smt. Maya Sharma is concerned, it was disclosed in the Income Tax Return, yet, it was taken to be the benami property. In the same manner, disclosure about existence of the cash was also given but it was ignored by the Initiating Officer as well as the Adjudicating Authority. They e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sferred to Smt. Maya Verma as a benami transaction. The "Katchcha Paper" could not have been relied by the respondent and accordingly the impugned order deserves to be set aside on the aforesaid ground also. 9. The Counsel for the appellant did not raise any other argument than referred to above, it is despite having an opportunity to raise any other argument on legal or factual issues. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant restricted his arguments to what has been referred above and accordingly, the Counsel for the respondent made his submissions. Arguments of the Counsel for the respondent: 10. Ld. Counsel for the respondent contested the appeals on all the grounds. Elaborate arguments were made and would be referred while recording ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aya Verma was not having independent source to acquire huge cash, though, Smt. Sunita Verma admitted that out of the total sum of Rs. 83,21,442/- found on 18.04.2017 Rs. 6,00,000/- belonged to herself and the husband. Remaining amount was passed on to the mother- in-law, Smt. Maya Verma. However, it is a fact that both of them did not disclose about any family settlement which is said to have been entered in the year 2008 when their statements were recorded as otherwise pleaded by Smt. Maya Verma at a later stage. It was disclosed by Smt. Maya Verma that a family settlement was entered on 01.10.2008 between the brother and herself where she received gold jewellery and silver coins but it was not accepted by the Initiating Officer, rather, S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d to have been passed on to Smt. Maya Verma out of the benami transaction. Thus, the respondent had caused attachment of the amount. It is necessary to add that the cash worth of Rs. 1,23,63,000/- was recovered from the residence belonging to all the appellants. 16. So far as the plea of sale proceeds of ancestral jewellery to secure the cash found at the time of search is concerned, the appellant has failed to produce any documentary evidence in the shape of voucher, bill or any other document to show the sale of jewellery. They did not name the person to whom jewelleries alleged to have been sold and otherwise if the jewellery would have been sold, how the gold jewellery and silver coins was existing with Smt. Maya Verma could not be e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....7.01.2017, how the appellant possesses the jewellery remains a question. It is stated that the jewellery was declared in the income-tax return and for that a copy of the income-tax return has been filed along with the appeal. We don't find any disclosure of the jewellery therein, rather, Balance Sheet has not been submitted by the appellant to prove the disclosure of the jewellery in the income-tax return. The fact, otherwise, reveals that the income-tax return submitted along with the appeal is not of the relevant year and in any case it does not disclose possession of jewellery along with the source for its acquisition. The plea is, otherwise, in contradiction and cannot be accepted because possession of the jewellery acquired by the appe....