TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 1327
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....025, MP-PBPT-3287/CHN/2025 (Stay) FPA-PBPT-728/CHN/2025, MP-PBPT-3305/CHN/2025 (Exem.) FPA-PBPT-666/CHN/2025, MP-PBPT-3314/CHN/2025 (Stay) FPA-PBPT-689/CHN/2025, MP-PBPT-3297/CHN/2025 (Stay) MP-PBPT-3298/CHN/2025 (Exem.) FPA-PBPT-667/CHN/2025, MP-PBPT-3284/CHN/2025 (Stay) FPA-PBPT-720/CHN/2025, MP-PBPT-3321/CHN/2025 (Exem.) FPA-PBPT-672/CHN/2025, MP-PBPT-3295/CHN/2025 (Stay) FPA-PBPT-721/CHN/2025, MP-PBPT-3299/CHN/2025 (Stay) FPA-PBPT-729/CHN/2025, MP-PBPT-3312/CHN/2025 (Stay) FPA-PBPT-674/CHN/2025 JUSTICE MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI (CHAIRMAN) AND SHRI V. ANANDARAJAN (MEMBER) For the Appellants : Shri Anish Dhingra, S.P.P. For the Respondent No. 1 : Mr. T. Pramod Kumar Chopda, Adv., Mr. Durai Raj, Adv., Ms. P. Deepika Chopda, Adv. For the Respondent No. 2 : Dr. M.R. Venkatesh, Adv. and Mr. B. Ramakrishnan, C.A. ORDER The batch of appeals have been preferred by the DCIT, BPU, Chennai to challenge the order dated 27.06.2025 passed by the Adjudicating Authority denying confirmation of provisional attachment of the properties finding it to be not involved in the benami transaction. Brief facts of the case: 2. The case was initiated based on the discreet enquiry and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tigation, it was found that M/s Aabaa Knittings, a proprietary concern of Smt. R. Bharathi, (one of the job worker) whose name was shown towards liability under the head 'Trade Payables' during the Financial Year 2016-17 and a liability under the head 'Share Capital' during the Financial Year 2017-18 in the books of accounts of M/s SIPL. It was also found that there was no such corresponding 'Assets' reflected in the books of account of M/s AabaaKnittings of Smt. R. Bharathi as per the ITRs. The investigation also revealed that the unsigned Share Certificates of M/s SIPL in the name of Smt. R. Bharathi and cheque book, letter heads and empty bills of M/s AabaaKnittings were found in the premises of M/s SIPL. The benamidar, Smt. R. Bharathi was unaware of any such transaction carried out in her name or being a creditor of M/s SIPL. It was even allotment of equity shares in her name or subsequent transfer of those shares through buy-back, the receipt and transfer of any funds for it. The case of benami transaction was accordingly found under Section 2(9)(C) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 (in short "the Act of 1988") and accordingly an order of provisiona....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....him and accordingly prayed for quashing of the impugned order passed by the Adjudicating Authority. Arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the respondent: 11. Ld. Counsel for the respondent contested the appeals on all the grounds raised by the appellants. Elaborate arguments were made for the aforesaid, which would be referred while dealing with each and every argument raised by the appellants to avoid repetition of one and the same facts and otherwise for the sake of brevity. Findings of the Tribunal: 12. We have considered the rival submissions of the parties and scanned the records carefully. The impugned order has been passed by the Adjudicating Authority denying confirmation of the provisional attachment of the properties by a detailed order, which has been challenged by the appellants. Elaborate arguments were made to question the correctness of the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority. 13. Before the issues raised by the appellants are taken up, it would be gainful to quote the provision under which the transaction was taken to be the benami in nature. It was under Section 2(9)(C) of the Act of 1988. The said provision is quoted hereunder for ready reference:....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s recorded under the Act of 1988, it would prevail and not the conflicting statement recorded in any other statute. It may be even the statement recorded in the cross-examination. 16. The perusal of the statement in the cross-examination reveals admission of the benamidar of her knowledge for allotment of shares and the other transactions related to it. Once such a disclosure was made by the benamidar, Ld. Counsel for the appellants could not clarify as to how a case of benami transaction would be made out under Section 2(9)(C) of the Act of 1988. It may be a case for evasion of tax by creating bogus trade payables in the name of the job workers but if the person to whom shares were allotted had knowledge of the transaction and he/she remains owner of the property till buy-back of shares by the company, a case would not fall under Section 2(9)(C) of the Act of 1988. 17. We, further, find that the appellants herein should not have caused the proceedings followed by the provisional attachment of the property only based on borrowed satisfaction. An order in favour of the respondent company has, otherwise, been passed by the Interim Board for Settlement, New Delhi under Section 2....