TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (10) TMI 1779
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rty<br>JUSTICE MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI (CHAIRMAN) SHRI RAJESH MALHOTRA (MEMBER) For the Appellants : Mr. Tarun Rohatgi, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri Manmeet Singh Arora, S.P.P. ORDER By this appeal under Section 46 of Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 (in short, "the Act of 1988"), a challenge has been made to the order dated 28.07.2022 passed by the Adjudicating Authority confirming the attachment of three plots and also the reference. The Ld. Counsel for the appellants submitted that respondent has treated M/s EPC Developers as a Benamidar and all his partners to be beneficial owners for the investment of Rs. 46,10,000/- in immovable properties. The description of those properties are as under: ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e name of M/s EPC Developers LLP. Mr. Sanjay Gupta made an investment of Rs. 42 Lakhs in the Nalanda Grand Project. It was given as an advance to Mr. Santosh Katara of the Nalanda Group but the project could not be executed and consequently, the investment of Sanjay Gupta was not returned to him by M/s Nalanda Group. In the year 2018 M/s Nalanda Pvt. Ltd. agreed to sell three properties for a total consideration of Rs. 71 Lakhs. It was with the understanding to adjust the advance amount of 42 Lakhs given by Mr. Sanjay Gupta to Mr. Santosh Katara. The amount aforesaid was declared in the books of accounts and accordingly, over and above Rs. 42 lakhs, the remaining amount was to be paid for purchase of properties from M/s. Nalanda Dwelling Pv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t a case of Benami Transaction is not made out, yet the Adjudicating Authority confirmed the reference and the attachment. Thus challenge to the aforesaid has been made on the grounds referred to above. The counsel for the appellant did not raise any other arguments though he was given opportunity to raise any other arguments, if it is available. The counsel for the appellant submitted that he has no other argument and accordingly, the Ld. Counsel for the respondent argued the appeal. The Ld. Counsel for the respondent contested the appeal on all the grounds raised by the appellant. It was submitted that immediately on incorporation of M/s EPC Developers LLP, three properties were purchased without having business and accumulated fund....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pellant. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the record carefully. The facts available on record reveals that immediately after incorporation of M/s EPC Developers LLP, it purchased three properties in the shape of land for the consideration of Rs. 71 Lakhs as reflected in the sale deeds. The record does not demonstrate that immediately after incorporation of the company, it was having sufficient fund to purchase the properties worth Rs. 71 Lakhs because contribution of Ajay Kumar Gupta, Sanjay Gupta, Suraj Govindani was of Rs. 1,50,000/- each and Pankaj Verma contributed Rs. 50,000/-. The total comes to Rs. 5 Lakhs only. The EPC Developers LLP purchased the property worth Rs. 71 Lakhs. The appellants have failed to disc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of Rs. 30 Lakhs between M/s VCC Builder and Nalanda Dwelling. When dispute of the land purchased by the EPC Developer came in their notice of the appellant entered into MOU on 16.09.2021 for adjustment of the advance amount of Rs. 42 Lakhs in settlement and a further sum of Rs. 10 Lakhs was paid to M/s VCC Builder. The appellants have narrated the facts ignoring the date of search and seizure and even the order passed by the Investigating Officer on 23rd June, 2021 i.e., much prior to the alleged MOU. The appellant did not submit subsequent cooked up story before the Investigating Officer in reference to the dispute between M/s VCC builder and Nalanda Dwelling. The efforts of the appellant seems to cover up the benami transaction by givi....