TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 660
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the appeals have been raised, thus, a common order would be passed. However, before that we may refer the brief facts of each case which are as under: Brief facts of the case: In Appeal No. FPA-PBPT-339/RP/2024 - Piyush Kumar Sahu 1. The Initiating Officer received information from the Jt. Director of Income Tax (Inv.), Bhopal regarding various Benami Properties and transactions relating to Shri Piyush Kumar Sahu and had reason to believe that the documents in his possession were sufficient for the proceedings under the Act. He was in possession of sale deeds of the property, statements of persons related to the case and bank statements of the persons involved in the purchase of the property. 2. The Initiating Officer conducted enquiry and found that immovable properties measuring 68 acres located in the village Kalmkladar, Tehsil Bagbahra, Mahasamund had been purchased in the name of her family members and tribal persons by Smt. Ranu Sahu, the Beneficial Owner. These lands are part of a farm house Om Krishi Farm'. The total purchase consideration paid to the sellers of lands for the said farm house was Rs. 1,76,08,000/-. One such investment was made in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r further observed that the amounts transferred in the bank account of Shri Piyush Kumar Sahu, the benamidar, were not from the previously available balance in the bank accounts of said persons and firms. It was seen that amounts deposited in their accounts via cash, transfers/deposits from others were subsequently moved to bank account of the benamidar before payment to the seller of the impugned property. 6. The Initiating officer observed from the statements recorded on oath of Shri Tushar Chandrakar, Shri Devendra Chandrakar and Shri NekiNavin Sahu that: • They did not know Shri Piyush Kumar Sahu, the benamidar. • They did not know the professional whereabouts of Shri Piyush Kumar Sahu. • There was no agreement with Shri Piyush Kumar Sahu for the amount provided by them. • There was no mortgage held by them against the money provided to Shri Piyush Kumar Sahu. 7. The Initiating officer relied upon the statement dated 25.11.2022 of Shri Tushar Chandrakar under section 50 of PMLA, 2002 wherein he stated that at the behest of his cousin, Shri J:?evendra Chandrakar, he transferred an amount of Rs. 8,90,000/-& Rs.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....00,000/- 04.06.2021 8,11,000/- 3. Vishal Taunk 753000059775 11.05.2021 Cash deposit 10,00,000/- 12.05.2021 9,00,000/- 15.05.2021 9,00,000/- 17.05.2021 3,70,000/- Total 84,81,000/- 9. The Initiating officer observed that these deposits in cash were just before the date of registration of said property on 30.06.2021 & 26.07.2021. Shri Jayant Bhai Taunk, in his statement recorded on oath, stated that he was doing agricultural activity and wholesale trading of vegetables and the cash deposited in his son's bank account was from the wholesale trading Qf the vegetable, but he did not furnish any cash book or supporting documents to prove his claim. He failed to establish source of cash and he also failed to establish the business from where cash of Rs. 84,81,000/- was deposited in their bank accounts. The Initiating officer concluded that cash deposit implies that cash component paid over and above the registered value of the impugned property. The Initiating officer relied upon the statement dated 15.11.2021 and 18.11.2022 of Shri Jayant Bhai Taunk under section 50 of PMLA, 2002 wherein he stated that he and his sons....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he property is being enjoyed by her by constructing a farm house. Hence it is a benami transaction as per section 2(9)(A) of the PBPT Act, 1988. 12. The Initiating Officer concluded that the transaction of immovable property is a benami transaction u/s. 2(9)(A) of PBPT Act, 1988 and Shri Piyush Kumar Sahu is benamidar as per definition of Section 2(10) of the PBPT Act, 1988 and property was held by him for immediate or future benefit of Smt. Ranu Sahu, making her beneficial owner within the purview of section 2(12) of the PBPT Act, 1988. On that belief and based on the factual and circumstantial evidences a show cause notice u/s. 24 (1) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Act, 1988 dated 06.09.2023 was issued and duly served to the said benamidar and the beneficial owner. In response to the show cause notice issued u/s. 24 (1) of the PBPT Act, 1988, the benamidar and the beneficial owner filed their reply. After considering their submissions and on the basis of the materials available on record, the Initiating Officer concluded that said property held by the benamidar is benami property for the benefit of the beneficial owner. Hence, the Initiating Officer pa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iry conducted that before purchase of said property, huge credit entries were. made in his bank account and thereafter, these credits were utilized to acquire impugned property. The detail is as under: Details of payments Remarks HDFC Bank Limited Cheque No. 000045 dated28.05.2021 of Rs. 40,00,000/- Paid from HDFC Bank Limited (A/c No.50100158414522) of the benamidar. The source of the consideration is amounts transferred by others (Shri Rajesh Kumar Dwivedi, Shri Premdhari Dwivedi, Shri Santosh Kumar Mishra, Soni Brothers & M/s Vishal Traders etc.) on different date in the. account of benamidar. 5. The Initiating officer found that 'Shri Rajesh Kumar Dwivedi and Shri Premdhari Dwivedi are the salaried persons & Shri Santosh Mishra is practicing as an advocate and all three of them are from Dhamtari district. M/s Soni Brothers is a partnership firm in which Shri Devendra Chandrakar and his wife Smt. Poonam Chandrakar are the partners & M/s Vishal Traders is running under the proprietorship of Shri Vishal Madhav Das Bhojwani. M/s Soni Brothers & M/s Vishal Traders do their business in Mahasamund and Raipur district respectively. The Initiating Officer furthe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt Bhai Taunk knew about the source and the nature of the transaction. Shri Jayant Bhai Taunk, in his statement recorded on oath, stated that he was doing agricultural activity and wholesale trading of vegetables and the cash deposited in his son's bank account was from the wholesale trading of the vegetable, but he did not furnish any cash book or supporting documents to prove his claim. He failed to establish source of cash and he also failed to establish the business from where cash of Rs. 30,00,000/- was deposited in the bank a/c of his son. The Initiating officer concluded that cash deposit implies that cash component paid over and above the registered value of the impugned property. The Initiating officer relied upon the statement dated 15.11.2021 and 18.11.2022 of Shri Jayant Bhai Taunk under section 50 of PMLA, 2002 wherein he stated that he and his sons, Shri Akash Taunk and Shri Vishal Taunk had sold 50 acres of their land to Shri Plyush Sahu & his family members in June, 2021 and that the benamidar, Shri Arun Sahu paid him Rs. 90,11,000/- in cash over and above the deed registration amount. 10. The Initiating officer observed that the investigation under PML....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... benamidar as per definition of Section 2(10) of the PBPT Act, 1988 and property was held by him for immediate or future benefit of Smt. Ranu Sahu, making her beneficial owner within the purview of section 2(12) of the PBPT Act, 1988. On that belief and based on the factual and circumstantial evidences a show cause notice u/s. 24 (1) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Act, 1988 dated 06.09.2023 was issued and duly served to the said benamidar and the beneficial owner. In response to the show cause notice issued u/s. 24 (1) of the PBPT Act, 1988, the benamidar and the beneficial owner filed their reply. After considering their submissions and on the basis of the materials available on record, the Initiating Officer concluded that said property held by the benamidar is benami property for the benefit of the beneficial owner. Hence, the Initiating Officer passed the order u/s. 24(4)(a)(i) of PBPT Act on 28.12.2023 provisionally attaching the property mentioned above. In Appeal No. FPA-PBPT-341/RP/2024- Revati Bai 1. The Initiating Officer received information from the .Jt. Director of Income Tax (Inv.) Nhopal regarding various Benami Properties and transacti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....8969321 of Smt. Revati Bai. The source of the investment is out of amount transferred by others (Shri Tushar Chandrakar and Smt. Shalini Sahu etc.) on different date in the said account. 5. The Initiating officer found that Smt. Rewati Bai is the aunt of Smt. Rahu Sahu. Shr iTushar Chandfakar is the proprietor of M/s Shri Ganesh Flowerist & M/s Shri Ganesh Organics. M/s Shri Ganesh Flowerist is a nursery plant and involved in trading of flower and M/s Shri Ganesh Organics is involved in production of natural fertilizer, both operated in the Mahasamund district. Smt. Shalini Sahu (wife of Shri Piyush Kumar Sahu) is the sister-in-law of Smt. Ranu Sahu. The Initiating officer further observed that the amounts transferred in the bank account of Smt. Rewati Bai, the benamidar, were not from the previously available balance in the bank accounts of said persons. It was seen that amounts deposited in their accounts via cash, transfers/deposits from others were subsequently moved to bank account of the benamidar before payment to the seller of the impugned property. 6. The Initiating officer observed from the statement recorded on oath of Shri Tushar Chandrakar that: ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ri Piyush Kumar Sahu & his family members in June, 2021 and that Shri Arun Sahu paid him Rs. 90,11,000/- in cash over-and above the sale deed registration amount. 10. The Initiating officer observed that the investigation under PMLA 2002 of Smt. Ranu Sahu, the beneficial owner, and her family members enlightens the fact that she received huge amounts from 2021 to 2022 while posted as DC of Korba and Raigarh District and utilized those amounts for purchasing benami properties in the name of her family members and other benamidars. The Initiating officer further claimed that during search and seizure operation conducted oh 30.06.2022 u/s. 131 of the IT Act, 1961 in the case of M/s Jai Ambe Group, Raipur, it was found that during October 2021 to April,2022 Rs. 5.52 crores was collected by Smt. Ranu Sahu. The Initiating- officer noted that Smt. Shalini Sahu purchased the impugned property from the money arranged by Smt. Ranu Sahu. In this case, Smt. Ranu Sahu is the person who arranged and layered her ill-gotten money in the bank accounts of persons who in turn transferred the money in bank account of her aunt Smt. Revati Bai. 11. The Initiating Officer observed that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....), Bhopal regarding Benami Properties and transactions relating to Smt. Promam and had reason to believe that the documents in his possession were sufficient for the proceedings under the Act. He was in possession of sale deeds of the property, statements of persons related in the case and bank statements of the persons involved in the purchase of the property. 2. The Initiating Officer conducted enquiry and found that immovable properties measuring 68 acres located in the village Kalmidadar, Tehsil Bagbahra, Mahasamund had been purchased in the name of her family members and tribal persons by Smt. Ranu Sahu, the Beneficial Owner. These lands are part of a farm house 'Om Krishi Farm'. The total purchase consideration paid to the sellers of lands for the said farm house was Rs. 1,76,08,000/-, One such investment was made in the impugned property in the name of the benamidar Smt. Poonam, mentioned above. 3. The Initiating Officer submitted that Smt. Ranu Sahu was posted as District Collector of Raigarh District and she was also holding the post of Director, Agriculture Department. She was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in connection with a money laund....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....• They did not know the professional whereabouts of Smt. Poonam. • There was no agreement with Smt. Poonam for the amount provided by them. • There was no mortgage held by them against the money provided to Smt. Poonam. 7. The Initiating officer relied upon the statement dated 25.11.2022 of Shri Tushar Chandrakar under section 50 of PMLA, 2002 wherein he stated that at the behest of his cousin, Shri Devendra Chandrakar, he transferred an amount of Rs. 8,90,000/- Rs. 7,00,000/- from his bank account to the bank account of Shri Pankaj Kumar and Smt. Shalini Sahu respectively and Rs. 2,00,000/ to the bank account of Smt. Shalini Sahu. That, the transferred amount of Rs. 18,10,000/- was returned in cash by Shri Piyush Sahu to Shri Devendra Chandrakar. He stated that he had also transferred an amount of Rs. 7,00,000/- in the bank account of Smt. Poonam which was received back in cash by Shri Devendra Chandrakar. 8. The registered sale realization of Rs. 12,00,000/- was credited in the account at HDFC Bank Limited of seller Shri Vishal Taunk. He also had a CC bank account with Indusind Bank Limited. The Initiating officer found that there....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s transferred by other persons bank accounts in different dates, and these funds were utilized to acquire the impugned property. The persons who transferred the money could not explain the source of the amount transferred from their bank accounts to the bank account of Smt. Poonam. It was further observed that amounts were deposited by way of cash or transfer/deposit from others in their bank accents and thereafter the amount was transferred to the bank account of Smt. Poonam. They failed to establish source of cash and they also failed to establish their business from where cash was generated. The Initiating Officer, therefore, concluded that said property was purchased in the name of Smt. Poonam and the purchase consideration was provided by Smt. Ranu Sahu by using other persons" bank accounts and the beneficial use of the property is being enjoyed by her by constructing a farm house. Hence, it is a benami transaction as per section 2(9)(A) of the PBPT Act, 1988. 12. The Initiating Officer concluded that the transaction of immovable property is a benami transaction 10/29) of PBPT Act, 1988 and Smt. Poonam is benamidar as per definition of Section 2/10) of the PBPT Act, 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....property in the name of her sister-in-law, Smt. Shalini Sahu. She has filed Income Tax Returns (ITRs) for the Assessment Years- 2019-20, 2020-21 and 2021-22. The Initiating Officer, after analysing these ITRs, observed that income of Smt. Shalini Sahu from all the sources was nominal. The details of income shown by Smt. Shalini Sahu are as under: S.No. A.Y. Total income per ITR (Rs.) 1. 2019-20 4,28,190 2. 2020-21 4,55,260 3. 2020-21 4,92,040 Total 13,75,490 4. The impugned property was purchased in the name of Smt. Shalini Sahu for a consideration of Rs. 12,85,000/- and payment was made from her account no. 50100228064654 of the HDFC bank. The Initiating officer found from the enquiry conducted that before purchase of said property, huge credit entries were made in her bank account and thereafter, these credits were utilized to acquire impugned property. The detail is as under: Details of payments Remarks HDFC Bank Limited Cheque No. 000014 dated 28.05.2021 for Rs. 12,85,000/- Paid from HDFC account no 50100228064654 of Smt. Shalini Sahu. The source of the investment is out of amount transferred by others (Sh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Rs. 31,70,000/ on different dates before the sale deed payments which is as under: Sl. No. Date Transaction Amount (Rs.) 1. 11.05.2021 Cash deposit 10,00,000 2. 12.05.2021 Cash deposit 9,00,000 3. 13.05.2021 Cash deposit 5,00,000 4. 15.05.2021 Cash deposit 6,00,000/- 9. The Initiating officer observed that these deposits in cash were just before the date of registration of said property on 27.05.2021. Shri Vishal Taunk failed to establish source of cash and he also failed to establish the business from where cash of Rs. 31,70,000/- was deposited in his bank account. The Initiating officer concluded that cash deposits imply that cash was paid over and above the registered value of the impugned property. The Initiating officer relied upon the statement dated 15.11.2021 and 18.11.2022 of Shri Jayant Dhal Taunk, father of seller Shri Vishal Taunk, under section 50 of PMLA, 2002 wherein he stated that he and his sons, Shri Akash Taunk and Shri Vishal Taunk had sold 50 acres of their land to Shri Piyush Kumar Sahu & his family members in June, 2021 and that Shri Arun Bahu paid him Rs. 90,11,000/- in cash over and above....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he PBPT Act, 1988 and property was held by her for immediate future benefit of Smt. Rani Sahu, making her beneficial owner within the purview of section 2(12) of the PBPT Act, 1988. On that belief and based on the factual and circumstantial evidences a show cause notice u/s. 24 (1) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Act, 1988 dated 06.09.2023 was issued and duly served to the said benamidar and the beneficial owner. In response to the show cause notice issued u/s. 24 (1) of the PBPT Act, 1988, the benamidar and the beneficial owner fled their reply. Alter considering their submissions and on the basis of the materials available on record, the Initiating Officer concluded that said property held by the benamidar is benami property for the benefit of the beneficial owner. Hence, the Initiating Officer passed the order u/s. 24(4)(a)(i) of PBPT Act on 28.12.2023 provisionally attaching the property mentioned above. In Appeal No. FPA-PBPT-344/RP/2024- Pankaj Kumar 1. The Initiating Officer received information from the Jt. Director of Income Tax (Inv.), Bhopal regarding various Benami Properties and transactions relating to Shri Pankaj Kumar and had reason to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....i, Shri Neeraj Nankani HUF & M/s Dev Exim etc.) on different date in the said account. 5. The Initiating officer found that Shri Pankaj Kumar is the younger brother of Smt. Ranu Sahu, Shri Tushar Chandrakar is the proprietor of M/s Shri Ganesh Floweriest & M/s Bhi Ganesh Organics. M/s Shri Ganesh Floweriest is nursery plant and involved in trading of flower and M/s Shri Genesh Organics is involved in production of natural fertilizer, both operated in the Mahasamund district. Shri Trilok Chandrakar is the proprietor of firm M/s Des Exim which is involved in trading of paddy in the Mahasamund district. Shri Vishal Nankani & Shri Neeraj Nankani, HUF is from the Dhamtari district. The Initiating officer further observed that the amounts transferred in the bank account of Shri Pankaj Kumar, the benamidar, were not but the previously available balance in the bank accounts of said persons and firms. It was seen that amount amounts deposited in their accounts via cash, transfers/deposits from others were subsequently moved to bank account of the benamidar before payment to the seller of the impugned property. 6. The Initiating officer observed from the statements recorded....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and his sons, Shri Akash Taunk and Shri Vishal Taunk had sold 50 acres of their land to Shri Piyush Kumar Sahu & his family members in June, 2021 and that Shri Arun Sahu paid him Rs. 90,11,000/- in cash over and above the deed registration amount. 10. The Initiating officer observed that the investigation under PMLA 2002 of Smt. Ranu Sahu, the beneficial owner, and her family members enlightens the fact that she received huge amounts from 2021 to 2022 while posted as DC of Korba and Raigarh District and utilized those amounts for purchasing benami properties in the name of her family members and other benamidars. The Initiating officer further claimed that during search and seizure operation conducted on 30.06.2022 u/s. 131 of the IT Act, 1961 in the case of M/s Jai Ambe Group, Raipur, it was found that during October, 2021 to April, 2022, Rs.5.52 crores was collected by Smt. Ranu Sahu. The Initiating officer noted that Shri Pankaj Kumar purchased the impugned property from the money arranged by Smt. Ranu Sahu. In this case, Smt. Ranu Sahu is the person who arranged and layered her ill-gotten money in the bank accounts of persons who in turn transferred the money in b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....- Tushar 1. The Initiating Officer received information from the Jt. Director of Income Tax (Inv.), Bhopal regarding various Benami Properties and transactions relating to Shri Tushar and had reason to believe that the documents in his possession were sufficient for the proceedings under the Act. He was in possession of sale deeds of the property, statements of persons related to the case and bank statements of the persons involved in the purchase of the property. 2. The Initiating Officer conducted enquiry and found that immovable properties measuring 68 acres located in the village Kalmidadar, Tehsil Bagbahra, Mahasamund had been purchased in the name of her family members and tribal persons by Smt. Ranu Sabu, the Beneficial Owner. These lands are part of a farm house 'Om Krishi Farm'. The total purchase consideration paid to the sellers of lands for the said farm house was Rs. 1,76,08,000/-, Our such investment was made in the impugned property in the name of the benamidar Shri Tushar, mentioned above. 3. The Initiating Officer submitted that Smt. Ranu Sahu was posted as District Collector of Raigarh District and she was also holding the post of Direct....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... did not know the professional whereabouts of Shri Tushar. • There was no agreement with Shri Tushar for the amount provided by them. • There was no mortgage held by them against the money provided to Shri Tushar. 7. The Initiating officer relied upon the statement dated 21.11.2022 of Shri Devendra Chandrakar under section 50 of PMLA, 2002 wherein he stated that he arranged bank entries worth Rs. 7,50,000/- and Rs. 12,50,000/-against cash of Shri Piyush Sahu in the bank accounts specified by him. He further admitted that Shri Piyush Sahu utilized these funds for purchase of land from Shri Jayant Bhai Taunk and he also facilitated these land deals between Sahu Family and Shri Jayant Bhai Taunk. 8. The registered sale realization of Rs. 8,00,000/- was credited in the accounts at HDFC Bank Limited of seller Smt. Kanak Lata Taunk, w/o Shri Jayant Bhai Taunk. She also had a CC bank account with Indusind Bank Limited. The Initiating officer found that there were cash deposits of Rs. 35,00,000/- on different dates before the sale deed payments which is as under: Sl. No. Date Transaction Amount (Rs.) 1. 11.05.2021 Cash deposi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ates, and these funds were utilized to acquire the impugned property. The persons/firms who transferred the money could not explain the source of the amount transferred from their bank accounts to the bank account of Shri Tushar. It was further observed that amounts were deposited by way of cash from others in their bank accounts and thereafter the amount was transferred to the bank account of Shri Tushar. They failed to establish source of sash and they also failed to establish their business from where cash was generated. The Initiating Officer, therefore, concluded that said property was purchased in the name of Shri Tushar and the purchase consideration was provided by Smt. Ranu Sahu by using other persons' bank accounts and the beneficial use of the property is being enjoyed by her by constructing a farm house. Hence, It is a benami transaction as per section 2(9)(A) of the PBPT Act, 1988. 12. The Initiating Officer concluded that the transactions of Immovable property is a benami transaction u/s. 2(9)(A) of PBPT Act, 1988 and Shri Tushar is benamidar as per definition of Section 2(10) of the PBPT Act 1988 and property was held by him for immediate or future benef....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onsideration for purchase of the property by Smt. Ranu Sahu. 5. Ld. Counsel for the appellants did not raise any other issue than referred to above despite an opportunity given by this Tribunal and called upon to raise any legal or factual issues. Ld. Counsel for the appellants submitted that when no material has been brought to show transfer of consideration by beneficial owner, a case of benami transaction would not be made out and accordingly, no other argument is required to be raised. It is despite an opportunity given by this Tribunal and accordingly Ld. Counsel for the appellant closed his argument. Arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the respondent: 6. Ld. Counsel for the respondent vehemently contested the appeals and submitted that the Initiating Officer could bring the material to show payment of consideration by Smt. Ranu Sahu for purchase of property under provisional attachment. 7. The beneficial owner, Smt. Ranu Sahu is an IAS officer and was posted as District Collector at Rajgarh District and other Districts where she was found involved to support the racket involving illegal levy on transportation of coal. A sum of Rs. 25/- per tonne was used to be charge....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt source because negligible amount was lying in their bank account before putting cash and thereafter transferred to the bank account of the benamidars. No source to acquire cash could be disclosed by those who transferred the money to the benamidars. It is also that the money was returned by the benamidar in cash to those persons/entities for which no source could be disclosed. 11. In the light of the facts aforesaid, the Adjudicating Authority finding a case of benami transaction confirmed the PAO. 12. Elaborate arguments made by the respondent would be referred while dealing with the arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the appellants to avoid repetition of the same facts and for sake of brevity. Findings of the Tribunal: 13. We have considered the rival submissions of the Counsel for the parties and scanned the records carefully. We are passing a common order for disposal of batch of seven appeals involving common question of law but rest on facts. Thus, it would be relevant to deal with each case separately for analysis of the legal and factual issues raised by the appellants, though it involves even common facts to some extent. In the case of Shri Piyush Kumar Sah....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ndrakar became relevant. In their statements, they admitted that they did not know Shri Piyush Kumar Sahu and his professional whereabouts. It is with the further statement that there was no agreement with Shri Piyush Kumar Sahu for the amount credited in his account and no mortgage to secure the amount was made. The statement of Shri Tushar Chandrakar recorded under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 ( in short "PMLA Act" ) categorically admits that at the behest of his cousin, Shri Devendra Chandrakar, he transferred an amount of Rs. 8,90,000/- and Rs. 7,00,000/- from his bank account to the bank account of Shri Piyush Kumar Sahu and Smt. Shalini Sahu and the total amount was Rs. 18,10,000/- which was returned back by Shri Piyush Kumar Sahu in cash to Shri Devendra Chandrakar. It is with the further admission that he had transferred a sum of Rs. 7,00,000/- in the account of Smt. Poonam Sahu and the amount aforesaid was returned back in cash to Shri Devendra Chandrakar. Shri Devendra Chandrakar in his statement admitted about the arrangement of the bank entries of a sum of Rs. 7,50,000/- and Rs. 12,50,000/-against cash of Shri Piyush Kumar Sahu in the bank ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d above the consideration price for 68 acres of land in favour of the appellants and therefore it is not only the consideration amount paid through banking channel but over and above the cash payment towards the purchase of property. 20. It was, however, a fact that Shri Jayant Bhai Taunk at one place disclosed the amount of Rs. 84,81,000/- received from his two sons, Shri Akash Taunk and Shri Vishal Taunk on sale of 50 acres of land to Shri Piyush Kumar Sahu and his family members in June, 2021 and accordingly, Shri Arun Sahu paid a sum of Rs. 90,11,000/- in cash but no source for it could be disclosed. However, it would be dealt with separately. The facts remain that the appellant, Shri Piyush Kumar Sahu brother of Smt. Ranu Sahu purchased the property without having sufficient source of income and the way transaction took place involving cash in the account of those who transferred the money to the appellant, prima facie, a case of benami transaction was made out. It was taken in the context of the serious allegation against Smt. Ranu Sahu who remained DC of Korba and Raigarh District and found involved in the case of money-laundering and commission of offence under the Preve....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ey were not even knowing the appellant, Shri Piyush Kumar Sahu and his professional whereabouts. The transfer of money was not after securing or executing of document. All those facts were taken into consideration to make a case of benami transaction where the property was registered in the name of the appellant of which consideration was paid by others. In fact, apart from the consideration shown in the sale deed, huge cash amounts over and above were also paid to the sellers of the property which was reflected in their bank accounts with deposit in cash. The relevant fact also remains that a corruption case has been registered and is pending against Smt. Ranu Sahu who was even arrested for her deeds. 23. Thus, after looking into the overall facts into consideration, we do not find that the appellant could make out a case to cause interference in the impugned order. In the case of Shri Arun Kumar Sahu 24. The case of the appellant, Shri Arun Kumar Sahu also involves provisional attachment of the property in his name which is a land measuring 7.04 acres in village Kalmidadar, Tehsil Bagbahara, Mahasamund purchased for a sum of Rs. 40,00,000/-. The argument of the appellant....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at when he transferred a sum of Rs. 12,00,047/- he was having a balance of Rs. 1,04,410/- as on 06.04.2021. He received Rs. 12,00,000/- from the bank account of his sister Smt. Monali Mehta on 13.04.2021 and accordingly the bank statement of Smt. Monali Mehta was examined where it was found that equivalent amount was deposited in cash just before the transfer and she could not disclose the source. The fact aforesaid has been given as reference and on account of transfer of money of Rs. 12,00,047/- otherwise the statement of Shri Rajesh Kumar Dwivedi, Shri Premdhari Dwivedi, Shri Vishal Das Bhojwani and Shri Nikhil Nankani were recorded who were not knowing the appellant, Shri Arun Kumar Sahu and his professional whereabouts. It was with the admission that there was no agreement to extend the amount of consideration to the appellant. It was not even involving mortgage of the property to secure the amount. The appellant herein failed to disclose the source of the persons who transferred the money in his bank account, which was utilized for purchase of the property under provisional attachment. 28. The fact given in the para above as one part otherwise apart from the sale considera....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ally attached. The detailed facts pertaining to the money-laundering case against Smt. Ranu Sahu, apart from corruption case have been referred in the previous appeals and therefore there is no need to repeat those facts again. It is stressed upon that Smt. Ranu Sahu was arrested in connection of those cases and accordingly, the matter was examined. 33. It was found that the appellant, Smt. Revati Bai had not filed the ITR prior to the Assessment Year 2019-20 and till the date of purchase of property, she had disclosed her total income to be of Rs. 13,90,000/-. The consideration price of the property was Rs. 9,33,000/-. Therefore, it was out of the permissible pocket of the appellant to purchase the property. However, on the analysis of the bank account, it was found that the source for purchase of property is not the income disclosed in the ITRs but the amount transferred by Shri Tushar Chandrakar and Smt. Shalini Sahu on different dates in the bank account of the appellant. Shri Tushar Chandrakar was the proprietor of M/s Ganesh Flowerist and M/s Ganesh Organic. Both the firms were operating in the Mahasamund district and those entities and the proprietor were not knowing the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sil Bagbahara, Mahasamund for a value of Rs. 12,00,000/- which has been provisional attached. It consists of area of 2.3 hectare. The payment of consideration was made from the bank account of the appellant with HDFC bank. Huge credit entries in the said bank account on account were found. It was on transfer of money by Shri Tushar Chandrakar and Shri Raj Kumar Nankani on different dates. Shri Tushar Chandrakar is the proprietor of M/s Shri Ganesh Flowerist & M/s Shri Ganesh Organics, who had transferred the money in the same manner as was in the case of Smt. Reveti Bai. They were not knowing the appellant, Smt. Poonam nor even her professional whereabouts. No document was executed before transfer of money and even the mortgage of the property to secure the amount. The case is similar to what we have dealt with previously, other than the fact that apart from consideration of Rs. 12,00,000/-, a sum of Rs. 31,70,000/- was paid just before transfer of land in following manner. It is common for few appellants: Sl. No. Date Transaction Amount (Rs.) 1. 11.05.2021 Cash deposit 10,00,000 2. 12.05.2021 Cash deposit 9,00,000 3. 15.05.2021 Cash dep....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mi transaction would not be washed finding involvement of benamidar who failed to disclose her own source for purchase of the property. In the case of Shri Pankaj Kumar 41. The appellant, Shri Pankaj Kumar is younger brother of Smt. Ranu Sahu. He purchased the land measuring 3.35 hectare at Village Kalmidadar, Tehsil Bagbahara, Mahasamund for a sum of Rs. 20,85,000/- which has been provisionally attached. The appellant filed the ITR from the Assessment Year 2019-20 and his total income in three relevant years prior to purchase of the property was Rs. 14,24,190 i.e. less than the amount of the consideration of Rs. 20,85,000/-. The payment of consideration was made after credit entries from the bank account of Shri Tushar Chandrakar, Shri Vishal Nankani, Shri Neeraj Nankani HUF & M/s Dev Exim on different dates. The case of the appellant is similar to the case of others, discussed in detail earlier, wherein the appellant failed to disclose the source for payment of consideration, in view of the fact that the credit entries to transfer the money in their bank accounts by different persons was in one part. Those persons who transferred the money could not disclose the source for ....