TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 255
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ra Enterprise were provisionally attached. 2. Ld. Authorised Representative (A R) for the Appellant submitted that the allegation is purely on the basis of the statement of Shri Asit B Doshi, the alleged Benamidar in the matter. No evidence has been provided to prove that the alleged illegitimate and ill-gotten cash belonged to the Appellant. The Initiating Officer (IO) did not allow any opportunity of cross examination of Shri Asit B Doshi or that of Shri Mangilal of Kalbadevi, who had allegedly contacted Shri Ashit B. Doshi, for depositing the old currency notes, as stated by Shri Ashit B. Doshi in his statement under Section 131 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Thus, the PAO has been passed without proper inquiry or verification and without allowing any opportunity of being heard or cross-examinations of other parties alleged to have been involved and therefore, the Order is bad in law. 3. Ld. A R for the Appellant argued that the various entities controlled by Shri Ashit B Doshi, which had purchased gold from M/s Vrajendra Enterprise, were having credit facilities from the banks. This point can be verified from the bank account of Marina Trading, Jai Ambe Enterprise and Aman ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llant or even a claim or whisper that cash was received from the Appellant. This issue itself is very vital because neither does Shri Asit Doshi (Respondent No. 2) states that he got the cash from the Appellant nor does Shri Mangilal states so (in fact his statement was not recorded by the IO) and the Appellant also does not state that he gave any cash to Shri Asit Doshi or to any Shri Mangilal at any time. In blatant violation of the rules of natural justice, the IO did not provide the Appellant cross examination of Shri Asit Doshi or Shri Mangilal. To support its case, the Appellant produced the following evidences: (i). The Purchase Bills from Vimalson Jewellers (ii). The Appellant's ledger Confirmation in the books of Vimalson Jewellers signed by Vimalson/Kaka. (iii). Sale bill issued by the Appellant to Jai Ambe Enterprises, Marina Trading and Aman Enterprise. (iv). Bank statements of the Appellant. (vi). Detailed Stock statements of the Appellant (vii). Purchase & Sales register of the Appellant (viii). VAT returns of the Appellant (ix). IT returns and financial statements of the Appellant Statemen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....k accounts of the entities managed and controlled by Shri Ashit Balwant Doshi and transferred back to the bank account of the actual beneficiary i.e. M/s Vrajendra Enterprise. So, in view of the above, Shri Ashit Balwant Doshi was treated as a Benamidar and M/s Vrajendra Enterprise was treated as a beneficiary as the consideration for such transaction was provided by M/s Vrajendra Enterprise through Firms of Shri. Ashit Balwant Doshi, for its future benefit. In the present case the benami transaction has been carried out in a very systematic and planned manner. As per planning, cash of the Appellant was deposited in the bank accounts of Shri Ashit Doshi, entry of sales was made in the books of Appellant and the bills were issued, then, Shri Ashit Doshi routed the money to the bank of the Appellant through RTGS. Ld. Counsel argued that as such, just like in the case of entry operators, the Appellant was also very well equipped with the documentary evidences, which in-fact are not the genuine evidences but are the fabricated entries in the books and papers. Ld. Counsel further argued that it is clear that the rates given by Appellant are far different than the prevailing rates in the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....four cases has been Shri Asit B Doshi, the alleged Beneficial Owners are Firms viz M/s Lakshya Jewels in Ref. No. R-151/2017, M/s Vrajendra Enterprise in Ref. No. R- 146/2017, M/s Shree Nakoda Gold in Ref. No. R-149/2017 and M/s Raksha Bullion in Ref. No. 148/2017. We have decided to deal with each of the four References separately because of separate PAO issued by the IO, distinct Impugned Orders issued by the Ld. AA and the Appellants, being the alleged Beneficial Owners, having filed separate Appeals viz Appeals Nos. FPA-PBPT-168/ MUM/2018 filed by M/s Lakshya Jewels, FPA-PBPT-169/MUM/ 2018 filed by M/s Vrajendra Enterprise, FPA-PBPT-170/MUM/ 2018 filed by M/s Shree Nakoda Gold and FPA-PBPT-178/MUM/ 2018 filed by M/s Raksha Bullion. 12. We cannot refrain from making the preliminary observations that the facts in each of the four cases relate to allegation of deposit of demonetized currency in the near proximity of the date of 8th November, 2016 when the Notes of denomination of Rs. 500 and Rs. 1000 were demonetized and were withdrawn out of circulation through the Orders of the Government of India. In each of these four cases, Shri Asit B Doshi was approached through an inter....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as alleged that the rates given by the Appellant on the said bills are very different from the prevailing rates in the market either when the credit on account of RTGS was received or when the Appellant has claimed to have issued the bills. The Respondent has further argued that as per the Indian Bullion and Jewellers Association Website, the rates on said two dates were markedly different from those which are reflected on the bills. Moreover, the weights of gold bars which were supposedly sold were illogical and odd. 15. The Respondent has further argued that in the present case the benami transaction has been carried out in a very systematic and planned manner. As per planning, cash of the Appellant was deposited in the bank accounts of Shri Ashit Doshi, entry of sales was made in the books of Appellant and the bills were issued, then, Shri Ashit Doshi routed the money to the bank of the Appellant through RTGS. Just like in the case of entry operators, the Appellant was also very well equipped with the documentary evidences, which in-fact are not the genuine evidences but are the fabricated entries in the books and papers. 16. The fact that deposit of cash amount of Rs. 1,5....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itable explanation. The complaint of the appellant now is that all the persons from whom enquiries were alleged to have been made by the authorities should have been produced to enable it to cross-examine them. In our-opinion, the principles of natural justice do not require that in matters like this the persons who have given information should be examined in the presence of the appellant or should be allowed to be cross-examined by them on the statements made before the Customs Authorities. Accordingly, we hold that there is no force in the third contention of the appellant." 18. Another decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. v. CCE, (2015) 8 SCC 519: (2015) 33 GSTR 1: 2015 SCC OnLine SC 489 at page 538, opined that law on natural justice has evolved and every violation of principles of natural justice need not result in setting aside an order, unless and until, prejudice has been established by the aggrieved party. The relevant paragraphs are extracted herein: "We are not concerned with these aspects in the present case as the issue relates to giving of notice before taking action. While emphasizing that the principles of natural justice....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that denial of request to cross- examine the witnesses by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority does not violate the principles of Natural Justice. "20. Coming to the case at hand, the Adjudicating Authority has mainly relied upon the statements of the appellants and the documents seized in the course of the search of their premises. But there is no dispute that apart from what was seized from the business premises of the appellants the Adjudicating Authority also placed reliance upon documents produced by Miss Anita Chotrani and Mr. Raut. These documents were, it is admitted disclosed to the appellants who were permitted to inspect the same. The production of the documents duly confronted to the appellants was in the nature of production in terms of Section 139 of the Evidence Act, where the witness producing the documents is not subjected to cross examination. Such being the case, the refusal of the Adjudicating Authority to permit cross examination of the witnesses producing the documents cannot even on the principles of Evidence Act be found fault with. At any rate, the disclosure of the documents to the appellants and the opportunity given to them to rebut and explain the s....