TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (10) TMI 491
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g 3.94 acres at village Borda, Tehsil- Sakti, District-Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh was allegedly a benami piece of land purchased by Shri Rameshwar Singh (Benamidar/Appellant) at the instance of one Raj Kumar Aggarwal (Beneficial/Respondent No. 2). During the course of investigation, the Initiating Officer (IO) recorded the statement of Appellant on 10.05.2018. It is alleged that, in the said statement, the Appellant stated that he earns about Rs. 1.30 Lakhs per annum out of agricultural activity and labor works. He allegedly stated that the land in question was purchased in the year 2016 by Beneficial Owner/Respondent No. 2 from Shri Dhaneshwar Singh and consideration for the purchase of the said land was paid by Respondent No. 2 to him. He also allegedly stated that he did not know Shri Dhaneshwar Singh and the original documents were with Respondent No. 2. Ld. Counsel further submitted that the said statement was categorically denied by the Appellant by way of swearing of an affidavit on the ground that, being illiterate and labour class tribal person, he was not aware as to what was written on the statement and was made to sign the piece of paper by IO and as such retracted fr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed 19.06.2016. Ld. Counsel contended that one Shri Kailash Tiwari, a non-tribal businessman had made several unsuccessful attempts to take over the possession of land under threat and manhandling of the Appellant. 4. Ld. Counsel submitted that the Appellant was summoned by the Department where he was examined by five persons. The Appellant had clearly informed that the land was purchased by him from his own funds. He also stated that he did not know Shri Rajkumar Agarwal and Shri Shashikant Raut. Ld. Counsel alleged that the statement of the Appellant was taken under coercion. Ld. Counsel contended that the Impugned Order is erroneous and non-reasoned. The statement of the Appellant which was denied has been relied upon. The investigation was made with pre-meditated mind. The Impugned Order is based merely on conjectures as it has treated Rs. 16.5 Lakhs as sale consideration. The Ld. AA has confirmed the PAO without application of mind. The Appellant has duly explained the sources of income. Ld. Counsel therefore prayed for allowing the Appeal. 5. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent submitted that as per the Land Revenue Code, 1959 a land belonging to a Schedule Tribe person canno....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al on 19.09.2016. Similarly, the other parcels of land which were purchased in the name of Shri Dhaneshwar Singh were subsequently transferred in the name of Shri Rameshwar Singh. 6. Ld. Counsel submitted that in the statement under Section 19(1) recorded on 10.05.2018, Shri Rameshwar Singh stated that he was engaged in agricultural activities and labour work. He earns income of Rs. 60,000/- to 70,000/- per year from the agricultural activities on 2 acres 96 Decimal land belonging to him and his family at Vill. Salauni, and Rs. 30,000/- to 35,000/- yearly from labour work. He had been engaged in labour work since 2014. Thus, his yearly income was approximately Rs. 1.3 lakhs. Although he has a PAN, he is not an income-tax payer. It is noteworthy here that his PAN had not been mentioned in any of the sale-deeds executed in his name. He failed to furnish the PAN and Bank Statement of his account in PNB. He has also stated that except for the family land and small house at Vill. Salauni, he only owns a cycle and no other movable or immovable property. Shri Rameshwar Singh further stated that he was not aware as to the consideration which was paid by Shri Raj Kumar Agarwal to purchas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... dated 17.05.2018 by Shri Rameshwar Singh was sent through post. Ld. Counsel contended that the affidavit makes fabricated statement without any corroboration. In the affidavit it has been stated that 2 Acre of land was purchased by Shri Rameshawar Singh at Vill. Borda, Teh. Sakti, for Rs. 5,00,000/- only, whereas the cost of land as per sale deed was Rs. 16,57,800/-. The affidavit therefore poses a serious challenge to the registered sale deed which has been duly signed by Shri Rameshwar Singh in presence of two witness before the Registering Authority. Also, the source of money remained unexplained. Simply it has been stated in the affidavit that the amount is out of savings of his father. Moreover, affidavit has been dated 17.05.2018 and sent by post on 07.09.2018. There is no reason for such inordinate delay of nearly four months. Also, in Para 5 of the affidavit, it has been mentioned that Shri Rameshwar Singh purchased the land on 10.06.2018. It is therefore evident that while the date of affidavit is of 17.05.2018 yet Shri Rameshwar Singh mentions 10.06.2018, a future date, which certainly cannot be true. 9. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the immovable prop....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. In this regard, the statement dated 10.05.2018 under Section 19(1) of PBPTA of Shri Rameshwar Singh has not only disclosed his poor economic status, but also the fact that he purchased the land at the behest of Shri Raj Kumar Agarwal. Shri Rameshwar Singh has also admitted that he signed the sale deed on payment of Rs. 10,000/- by Shri Raj Kumar Agarwal. In the affidavit dated 17.05.2018 filed by Shri Rameshwar Singh denial has been attempted by Shri Rameshwar Singh of certain facts revealed by him in his statement dated 10.05.2018. Certain inherent inconsistencies have been brought out by the Ld. Counsel for the Respondent. Moreover, there are other documentary evidences including the sale deed clearly shows that the cost of the land was Rs. 16,57,800/- and not Rs. 5,00,000/- claimed by the Appellant in his affidavit. While the affidavit is dated 17.05.2018 it was sent to the Department by post on 07.09.2018, a delay which remained unexplained. The affidavit talks of an event of 10.06.2018, which does not seem plausible and falsifies the affidavit. We therefore cannot accept the retraction as true and correct made by the Appellant subsequently. 12. It is to be appreciated th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed has considered each point as narrated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as a guidance and the same is discussed as below: 1. The source from which the purchase came In this case the amount for purchase has been provided by Shri Rajkumar Agarwal. Without this aided amount Shri Rameshwar Singh would not have been able to purchase the said property as he has no capacity or source for such purchase. 2. The nature and possession of the property, after the purchase The nature of property is agricultural as on date but can be converted in commercial as its proximity to National Highway. The investment has been made by the beneficial owners for future use of the said land. As the possession of the land is concerned, it is not with the Benamidar as stated by him in his statement dated 10.05.2018. The possession of property is with Beneficial Owner Shri Raj Kumar Agarwal. 3. Motive, if any, for giving the transaction a benami colour The motive for purchase of said land has been well stated by Shri Rameshwar Singh is for future use. The land was first purchased in the name of Shri Dhaneshwar Singh and the Beneficial Owner has been profited f....