TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 1292
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... dated 23.09.2024 passed by the Adjudicating Authority confirming the provisional attachment of the property while answering the reference. Brief facts of the case: 2. It is a case where Initiating Officer (IO) received an information vide letter dated 01.02.2017 that M/s Veer Trading Co., Proprietor Shri Amit Jain had deposited cash of Rs. 1,47,05,630/- in his bank account with Punjab National Bank, Anand Vihar, New Delhi. The amount aforesaid was deposited from time to time of rupees ranging between Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 5,00,000/-. Out of the aforesaid amount so deposited, a sum of Rs. 67,50,000/- was transferred in the bank account of M/s Shiva Jewellers, Proprietor Shri Amit Singhal on 10.11.2016. 3. On receipt of the informatio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 5. The IO thus found it to be a case of benami transaction. It is to route the cash of demonetization money in the bank account of M/s Veer Trading Co. and after routing it back to the bank account of M/s Shiva Jewellers. Accordingly, a notice under Section 24(1) of the Act of 1988 was issued to provisionally attach the property and sent it for confirmation. The Adjudicating Authority found that there was no real sale or purchase between the two entities. The transactions were basically to provide accommodation entries. The Adjudicating Authority accordingly confirmed the Provisional Attachment Order while answering the reference. The order aforesaid has been challenged by the appellant. Arguments of counsel for the appellant: 6. The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appeal. Arguments of counsel for the respondents: 9. The appeal was vehemently contested by the learned counsel for the respondents. It was submitted that on receipt of the letter from the Income Tax Department, the IO initiated the proceedings and for that analyzed the bank account. It is coupled with other material. It was found that at the time of demonetization of money, the appellant had routed his cash through M/s Veer Trading & Co. involved in the accommodation entries and, therefore, a case of benami transaction was rightly taken up. It was not falling in any of the exceptions, more specifically to hold the transaction to be in fiduciary capacity under Section 2(9)(A) of the Act of 1988. Elaborate arguments were made by the c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of Rs. 1,47,05,630/- in the bank account of M/s Veer Trading & Co. with Punjab National Bank could not be disclosed. It is with the further fact that M/s Veer Trading & Co. was not having substantial business, rather was involved in accommodation entries and accordingly the statements of Proprietors of M/s Veer Trading & Co and M/s Shiva Jewellers were recorded. Both the Proprietors made conflicting statements. The Proprietor of M/s Shiva Jewellers Shri Amit Singhal justified receipt of money on sale of gold and silver to M/s Veer Trading & Co. The fact aforesaid was denied by the Proprietor of M/s Veer Trading & Co. Shri Amit Jain. It was submitted that no purchase of gold and silver is involved and the signatures on the documents are for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fiduciary capacity hence even the second ground raised by the appellant is not made out. 13. The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that a cash transaction cannot fall in the definition of benami transaction because there is no prohibition to involve cash transaction. We have considered the aforesaid aspect and even the order of this Tribunal in the case of G. Bahadur Vs. K. Visakh, ACIT (Appeal No.26/2018) dated 31.10.2018 where it was held that cash transactions may not fall in the definition of benami if the source of the cash is disclosed. In the instant case, the parties failed to disclose the source for its deposit in the bank account of M/s Veer Trading & Co., rather it was found that demonetized money was deposit....