TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 389
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... through M/s The Visa Hub, Prop. Sameer Hussain Abbass Mithawala. Ld. Counsel further submitted that the statements of Shri Shrenik Shah and Shri Jigishbhai Shah Prop. of Parin Jewellers were recorded on oath on 14.08.2017 in which they stated that they did not transact any business with Shital Jewellers and Shivam Jewellers during the demonetization period (8.11.2017 to 31.12.2017). However, the statement of Shri Paresh Soni, Prop. M/s Shivam Jewellers was recorded on 18.08.2017 in which he stated that he received RTGS in lieu of delivery of gold to Shri Shrenikbhai. Shri Zahir Abbas K Mithawala in his statement recorded on 22.08.2017 stated that he received Rs 8-10 crores (approximately) in cash in Old High Denomination (OHD) notes from Faim Khan alias Shaileshbhai along with the paper slip on which the details of bank accounts were mentioned and after depositing the cash in benami accounts, the same was transferred through RTGS/NEFT to the bank accounts as mentioned in the paper slip. Faim Abdul Salim Khan alias Shaileshbhai in his statement recorded on 22.08.2017 stated that cash of Rs. 10 crores along with paper slip on which details of bank accounts were mentioned was receive....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hai and as per Shailesh's instructions the funds were transferred to the bank account of M/s Shital Jewellers. Further, the entry operators had confirmed that in these transactions there was no business activity involved. Shri Paresh D. Soni was asked to verify the same and provide an explanation. In response, Shri Paresh Soni stated that he did not know Zahir Mithawala, Aftab Kazi or Shaileshbhai and the money remmitted from the bank account of Shital Jewellers was against the sale of gold bullion to various other jewellers as Parin Jewellers, Atul Ornament/Snaihchain Pvt. Ltd, Joy Pintu and Man Ornament. All these firms/ concerns belong to Shri Shrenik Shah and his close family members. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant submitted that Shri Paresh Dwarkadas Soni in his case and in his wife's case (as the business affairs of M/s Shital Jewellers were controlled by Shri Paresh Dwarkadas Soni) and Shri Faim Abdul Khan alias Shaileshbhai appeared on 01.09.2017 for cross examination with Shri Shrenik Shah. During the proceedings of cross examination Shri Shrenik Shah said that he did not carry out any business transaction with Paresh D Soni during the demonetization period. He also....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was attached in the case of Shri Shrenik Shah (Beneficial Owner) and Sameer Hussain Abbas Mithawala Prop. of M/s The Visa Hub (Benamidar) as against benami transaction involving Rs. 59,00,000. (3) Bank Account vide No.062163700000433 maintained with Yes Bank, Shop No.1, Gangaram Chamber, Relief Road, Ghee Katha Cross Road, Ahmedabad was attached in the case of Shri Shrenik Shah (Beneficial Owner) and Sameer Hussain Abbas Mithawala Prop. of M/s The Visa Hub (Benamidar) as against benami transaction involving Rs. 59,00,000. (4) Immovable property (joint holder) situated at Shop No.4, Ground Floor, 24 Carat Building, Changispur, Ahmedabad vide Registration No. 8927/2016 (dated 23.12.2016) valued approximately Rs. 11,00,000/- was attached in the case of Shri Shrenik Shah (Beneficial Owner) and Sameer Hussain Abbas Mithawala Prop. of M/s The Visa Hub (Benamidar) as against benami transaction involving Rs. 59,00,000. (5) Immovable property (joint holder) situated at Bunglow No.29, Prernatirth Bunglows, T.P.No.4, F.P. No. 142 & 157, Survey No.72/3, 73/1 and 76, Ahmedabad vide Registration No. 7752/2017 (dated 06.09.2017) valued approximately Rs. 1,00,00,000/- w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....emium paid after 28.11.2016 in the case of Shri Shrenik Shah (Beneficial Owner) and Sameer Hussain Abbas Mithawala Prop. of M/s The Visa Hub (Benamidar) as against benami transaction involving Rs. 59,00,000. (12) Policy No.851484067 maintained with Life Insurance Corporation of India, Naranpura, GHB Complex, Nr.Ankur Bus Stand Ahmedabad was attached to the extent of premium paid after 28.11.2016 in the case of Shri Shrenik Shah (Beneficial Owner) and Sameer Hussain Abbas Mithawala Prop. of M/s The Visa Hub (Benamidar) as against benami transaction involving Rs. 59,00,000. (13) Policy No.003270115 (Client Id - 4090695011) maintained with Canara HSBC OBC Life Insurance Company Ltd. 2nd Floor, Orchid Business Park, Sector-48, Sona Road, Gurugram, Haryana was attached to the extent of premium paid after 28.11.2016 in the case of Shri Shrenik Shah (Beneficial Owner) and Sameer Hussain Abbas Mithawala Prop. of M/s The Visa Hub (Benamidar) as against benami transaction involving Rs. 59,00,000. 5. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant stated that in the course of proceedings before the Ld. AA the Initiating Officer moved an application under Sections 26(6) and 26(5) requesting....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....S to her. However, on detailed investigation and on recording of statement under oath, she/her representative changed her stand and said that the delivery of gold had been taken by Shri Shrenik Shah and booking was also done by Shri Shrenik Shah, meaning thereby that the money was sent from M/s. The Visa Hub's account to jeweller and delivery was given to Shri Shrenik Shah. ii. No FIR/complaint against Shri Shrenik Shah was lodged by jeweller which shows that the jeweller was also a part of the conspiracy. The jeweller was fully aware that the RTGS was received had no connection with M/s. The Visa Hub. He should have taken legal course of action. Till now he has not taken any action. In light of the above facts and after considering the provisions of The Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 it can be construed that the transaction pertaining to the cash worth Rs. 59,00,000 deposited in the account of Sameer Hussain Abbas Mithawala and later transferred to the account of Smt. Shital Paresh Soni Prop. of Shital jewellers is a benami transaction. In this case, cash of Rs. 59,00,000 deposited in the bank account of benamidar in the form o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng of the transaction would not mean that actual transaction has taken. What is required is the actual happening and not just recording of happening to take place. It is not that the documents produced by the appellant bullion companies were casually ignored rather deep routed investigation was made. The alleged delivery of gold to the benamidars through the abettors was said to have been delivered further to one 'Mohammad' who has refused about delivery of gold. The respondent thus tried to reach to the complete chain to find out actual happening. It is further necessary to clarify that if the gold was purchased, the appellant bullion Company should have produced the payment towards the alleged gold but no such material was produced in a specific. The critical analysis of all the issues has been made in the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority and we don't find any error therein to cause interference in the finding and accordingly the appeal fails and dismissed. The case of the abettors The argument against the attachment has been raised by the abettor. It is submitted that their property has been attached while they were not the beneficial owner or the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ficiary owner) as the Abettor of the entire Benami transaction. Pending attachment of the entire property that was the subject matter of the benami transaction, the provisional attachment of the properties being the bank balances, policies, immovable properties etc. made by the 10 holding D-2 i.e. Mr. Shrenik Shah as beneficial owner lying in different bank accounts in various names shall continue till the finalization of proceedings under the Act." Ld. Counsel therefore pleaded to dismiss the Appeal. 9. We have considered the rival submissions and the material on record. It is not disputed that Shri Shrenik Shah, the Appellant herein was initially treated as the Beneficial Owner, but was subsequently held as the Abettor. It is on record that the Initiating Officer moved the application before the Ld. AA during the adjudication proceedings for holding Smt. Shital Soni Prop. M/s Shital Jewellers as the Beneficial Owner and treat Shri Shrenik Shah as the Abettor. On perusal of the Impugned Order, it is clear that the Ld. AA after discussing the role of Shri Shrenik Shah and Smt. Shital Soni agreed with the prayer of the Initiating Officer under Section 26(6) of the PBP....