TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 1293
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or the commission of offence under Sections 384, 120(B), 34 and 506(2) of Indian Penal Code and Sections 40, 42(A) of Gujarat Money Lenders Act, 2011. It was alleged that Shri Manubhai Bhimbhaivala and Shri Jitubhai Manubhai Vala were involved in illegal money lending on exorbitant high rates of interest associated with coercion and extortion. During the course of investigation by the police authorities, it was found that the accused were even involved in benami transaction with the support of their driver and one Shri Raghuvirbhai Hakubhai Khuman for purchasing various immovable properties in their names. 3. Ld. Counsel for the appellants made a reference of the properties said to have been held by Shri Amitbhai Hashubhai Mehta and Shri Raghuvirbhai Hakubhai Khuman out of the benami transactions. 4. Ld. Counsel for the appellants submitted that the allegations were made for land grabbing and encroachment by Shri Manubhai Bhimbhai Vala and Shri Jitubhai Manubhai Vala. It was on the government land in Ditla Village of Dhari Taluka. So far as element of benami transaction is concerned, it was largely with a framework where the owner of the land would be compelled to make a sale....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ants did not raise any other arguments than referred to above, despite an opportunity offered by this Tribunal to raise any factual or legal issues. However, Ld. Counsel for the appellants shows his satisfaction to restrict his arguments what has been narrated above. Arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the respondent: 10. Ld. Counsel for the respondents contested the appeals. He made elaborate arguments and during the course of argument even referred to the documents and the statements of the witnesses to show a case of benami transaction. None of the statements were recorded under threat, coercion, rather, it was taken with freewill and therefore there is nothing on record to show any material against the officer for recording of the statement under coercion. This demonstrates that after having made the statement to make out a case of benami transaction, the appellant sought to withdraw from his statement. It was urged that the statement of other persons should not be relied on despite being recorded under oath. The plea is untenable. The reference of the document was also given to show that a case of benami transaction was made out. We would refer to the elaborate arguments wh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....enami transaction. We may refer the statement of the relevant person which includes the benamidar, Shri Amit Hashubhai Mehta, who admitted that his name was used for extorting high interest on the money given to various persons. He was otherwise as a driver of Shri Jitubhai Vala. The consideration for the property was to be paid in the shape of loan by the beneficial owner and ultimately property to be registered in his name, in case of default in payment of the loan. It is, however, with the disclosure that out of the many properties, one property was purchased by him after taking an amount of Rs.6,80,000/- from Shri Jitubhai Vala, out of which he has already served loan of Rs.2,00,000/-. The aforesaid fact has not been proved with the support of the document. It could have been a loan agreement, bank statement and any other relevant material to show advancement of loan by Shri Jitubhai Vala to the appellant, Shri Amit Hashubhai Mehta. 13. The benamidar admitted that their bank accounts were controlled by the beneficial owner and not by them. A specific reference to the bank accounts in the State Bank of India, Darbargadh Branch and ICICI Bank Savarkundla was given. Both the ac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to make out a case of benami transaction and have been relied upon. An allegation of coercion and threat for the sake of it cannot be accepted. No reason for coercion and threat has been given for recording of the statement. It is not that the officers were having enmity with the appellant so as to threat and record the statement under coercion. It is even for other witnesses. Thus, the arguments were raised for the sake of it and otherwise the appellant, benamidars were under obligation to disclose the source of consideration for purchase of the property which they have failed to do so and otherwise evidence brought on record by the respondent shows that consideration was paid by the beneficial owner in the shape of loan to the landholder and thereupon on non-payment of loan, to be adjusted towards consideration for purchase of land. The appellants have failed to demolish the case which was proved by the respondent by sufficient evidence and could not be rebutted by the appellant. 17. At this stage, we may clarify that statement of all related witnesses can be considered which may be even of third-party. The statements of the appellants themselves were sufficient to prove the ....