TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 671
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Yards located in Aero City, SAS Nagar (Mohali), Punjab. The Reference alleged that Shri Ravindra Kumar Salhotra, the Appellant herein is the Benamidar and Shri Vinay Kumar Hari is the Beneficial Owner (BO) for the said property. The attached property is valued at Rs. 65,03,000/-. 2. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Ld. AA has wrongly held that the Appellant is Benamidar under Section 2(10) of PBPTA in respect of the impugned plot. In the absence of any beneficial owner and without any material evidence on record the Impugned Order cannot be sustained. Ld. AA has simply relied upon the admission of the Appellant which was given under the pressure from the Department and also to avoid consequential multiple proceedings. The Appellant was under pressure due to search and seizure conducted at business and residential premises of Sh. Vinay Kumar Hari. Ld. AA ignored the Ministry of Finance Circular No. F286/2/2003-IT(INV) dated 10.03.2003 whereby confessions with regard to additional income during the course of search and seizure and survey operations should be ignored. Ld. AA ignored sufficient evidence given in support of financial position of the Appellant, the fa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... total consideration of Rs. 65,03,000/-, out of which Rs. 5,78,000/- was paid through cheque and the remaining amount was paid in cash. In this regard, the statement of Sh. Ravindra Kumar Salhotra was recorded on oath on 30.08.2018 and 31.08.2018 during the course of search proceedings wherein he was asked about his relation with Sh. Vinay Kumar Hari to which he had stated that he was working as General Manager from 01.11.2013 to 18.07.2018 in M/s Angels Immigration & Educational Consultants Pvt. Ltd. whose Managing Director is Sh. Vinay Kumar Hari. When he was confronted with the agreement to sell of the immovable property and he was asked to explain the source of acquisition of the said immovable property to which he deposed that the payment of Rs. 5,78,000/- had been made from his salary account maintained with the Indian Bank, Sector-9D, Chandigarh and the payment of Rs. 59,25,000/- in cash had been done by Sh. Vinay Kumar Hari. He had further clarified in his statement that the said property was purchased by Sh. Vinay Kumar Hari in the name of the Appellant, and the whole consideration had been paid by Sh. Vinay Kumar Hari. Further, Sh. Ravindra Kumar Salhotra had categoricall....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....reed with the statement of Sh. Ravindra Kumar Salhotra relating to the profit made per visa for different countries. He also admitted of having unaccounted receipts during FY 2016-17 of Rs 9.43 crores and of Rs. 44.36 crores during FY 2017-18 during the course of recording of his statement. Thus, there are sufficient evidences of cash generation in the business of Sh. Vinay Kumar Hari as admitted by him during the course of recording of his statement. Out of the unaccounted cash so generated, Sh. Vinay Kumar Hari had purchased the said immovable property in the name of Sh. Ravindra Kumar Salhotra for his own benefit. 6. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent submitted that Sh. Ravindra Kumar Salhotra in his statement dated 26.11.2018 recorded under Section 19(1)(b) of the PBPTA admitted that he and his wife did not have the financial capacity to purchase the impugned property. He thus confirmed the earlier statement of his. The Appellant filed an affidavit dated 03.12.2018 that Shri Vinay Kumar Hari had purchased the impugned property and had no objection for any action under the PBPTA. Ld. Counsel further submitted that Sh. Vinay Kumar Hari in his reply before the Ld. AA had alleged th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ansferred by the beneficial owner and cash was paid by him in purchasing the impugned property. However, it has not come on record whether the amount was transferred from the account of the beneficial owner in the account of benamidar. As regards the payment of cash there is no evidence to this effect. Therefore, it is very clear that the purchase consideration has been paid by Sh. Ravindra Kumar Salhotra and property is purchased in his name and his wife has been made the nominee for the above property. However, despite this he has disowned the property. As regards the payment of purchase consideration by the beneficial owner Sh. Vinay Kumar Hari, the only allegation made in this regard is by Sh. Ravindra Kumar Salhotra. There is no substantive proof or evidence in this regard. Beneficial Owner has given sufficient evidence in support of the financial status of Sh. Ravindra Kumar Salhotra and it is quite possible for him to purchase this property. In the event of property being purchased for the beneficial owner, the nominee cannot be his wife. Therefore, it appears that the role of beneficial owner in providing funds for purchase of said property for his benefit is not establishe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of payment of Rs. 5,78,000/- through the banking channel and Rs. 59,25,000/- in cash. Shri Ravindra Kumar Salhotra admitted as having no financial capacity to have generated such large amount of fund. It is not disputed that even Shri Salhotra was an employee as General Manager in the said Company of Shri Hari. Notwithstanding the belated retraction of his statement by Shri Nitin Mahindru, it cannot take away from the fact that S/Shri Ravindra Kumar Salhotra and Nitin Mahindru were employees of Shri Vinay Kumar Hari. It is also on record that Shri Hari had categorically admitted having unaccounted cash receipts and expenses. In his statement Shri Ravindra Kumar Salhotra had given profit per visa for students going through the Company, for admission to universities abroad. We do find on record that the said business was being conducted which generated large amount of cash with which the possibility of Shri Vinay Kumar Hari having enough funds to invest in the said property in the name of the Appellant cannot be ruled out. 9. We note that the Appellant has for the first time in the pleadings made in the Appeal filed against the Impugned Order has claimed the property as his own. I....