9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (9) TMI 719 - AT - Benami PropertyBenami transaction - beneficial owner of the currency seized from Bikky Kumar Singh - as argued no evidence could be produced by the respondent to prove appellant to be beneficial owner of the currency seized from Bikky Kumar Singh - HELD THAT - The statement initially recorded un/s 132(4) of the Income Tax Act have been corroborated by the Bikky Kumar Singh. The statement aforesaid has been quoted in the impugned order to show involvement of the appellant. The elaborate discussion on the issue has been made but now appellant has disowned the currency notes and pleading to this effect has been made in the appeal. The counsel for the appellant could not clarify that if the currency notes does not belongs to the appellant, how he is aggrieved by the attachment of the aforesaid amount which was seized from the possession of Bikky Kumar Singh. In fact, filing the appeal would show interest of the appellant in the currency and would be only when it belongs to him and not otherwise. In any case, we do not find any substance in the argument of the appellant to state that no evidence or material has been produced by the respondents to prove case against him. Rather, the material available on record was considered by the Adjudicating Authority and elaborate finding was recorded thereupon. It is based on the material. Thus, we are unable to accept the first argument raised by the appellant. First statement u/s 132(4) was recorded on 06.02.2017 by the Income Tax Authority while the subsequent statement under section 19(1)(b) of the Act of 1988 was recorded on 17th and 18th January, 2018, i.e. with the delay of almost eleven months - Appellant however failed to refer to any provision which mandates that statement should be recorded within the specific period and otherwise as such there is no variance in the two statements of Bikky Kumar Singh recorded under section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act and the subsequent statement under section 19(1)(b) of the Act of 1988. Thus, even second argument raised by the appellant cannot be accepted in absence of a statutory provision to mandate recording of the statement within the specific period. Adjudication of benami property - impugned order that 25.04.2019 was passed after one year after the date of reference which is 26.03.2018 - Section 26(7) mandates order under sub-section 3 of section 26 within a period of one year from the end of the month in which reference under sub-section (5) of section 24 was received. The learned counsel for the appellant has ignored the word received rather it was taken to be the date of reference . In fact, no pleading has been made to plead the order was passed beyond a period of one year from the date of receipt of the reference. Though, the issue aforesaid is mixed question of facts and law. In any case, it was clarified by the respondent that reference dated 26.03.2018 was received by the Adjudicating Authority in the month of April 2018 who then caused show cause notice to Bikky Kumar Singh with a copy to the appellant in the month of April 2018 and the order was passed within one year from the date of receipt of the reference. In fact, from the end of the month of the receipt of the reference, the impugned order was passed within one year. Thus, the third issue raised by the appellant is also not made out though was not even pleaded in the appeal. Notice and attachment of property involved in benami transaction - As provision of section 24(2) of the Act of 1988 its not mandate issuance of notice in the name of beneficial owner rather what is required is a copy of the notice to the beneficial owner. In the instant case, a copy of the notice was sent to the appellant and perusal of the pleading of the appeal would show not only its receipt but reply to the notice by the appellant. It could not have been, if the copy of the notice would not have been served on the appellant. In fact, the appellant has admitted service of the copy of the notice as per section 24(2) of the Act though it is to be given to the benamidar but copy was given to beneficial owner. Thus, the argument in reference to section 24(2) is also not made out. Approval required under section 24(4)(A)(i) - We find that approval aforesaid was granted by the Competent Authority and was a part of the record. For the compliance, the respondent was directed to place on record the order of the approval which was submitted with the copy to the appellant. In view of the above even the last issue raised by the appellant in reference to the requirement of approval under section 24(4)(a)(i) is concerned, the compliance of the aforesaid also exist. It was for continuing the provisional attachment of the property. Appeal dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the appellant was the beneficial owner of the currency seized from Bikky Kumar Singh. 2. Validity of the impugned order based on the delay in recording the statement under section 19(1)(b) of the Act of 1988. 3. Compliance with section 26(7) of the Act of 1988 regarding the time limit for passing the order. 4. Issuance of show cause notice under section 24(2) of the Act of 1988. 5. Approval under section 24(4)(A)(i) of the Act of 1988. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Beneficial Ownership of the Currency: The appellant argued that no evidence was produced to prove that he was the beneficial owner of the currency seized from Bikky Kumar Singh. The Adjudicating Authority relied on the statements of Bikky Kumar Singh, recorded under section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act and section 19(1)(b) of the Act of 1988, which named the appellant as the person who provided the currency for delivery. The Tribunal found that the statements were consistent and corroborated by other evidence, such as the mobile numbers and the appellant's involvement in arranging the railway ticket. The Tribunal dismissed the appellant's claim, stating that the material on record was sufficient to establish the appellant's beneficial ownership. 2. Delay in Recording the Statement: The appellant contended that the statement under section 19(1)(b) of the Act of 1988 was recorded almost eleven months after the initial statement under section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal noted that there is no statutory provision mandating a specific period within which the statement must be recorded. The Tribunal found no variance between the two statements and dismissed the argument, stating that the delay did not affect the validity of the statements. 3. Compliance with Section 26(7): The appellant argued that the impugned order was passed beyond the one-year period stipulated in section 26(7) of the Act of 1988. The Tribunal clarified that the one-year period is calculated from the end of the month in which the reference was received, not the date of the reference. The reference dated 26.03.2018 was received in April 2018, and the impugned order was passed within one year from the end of that month. The Tribunal found that the order was passed within the stipulated period and dismissed this argument. 4. Issuance of Show Cause Notice: The appellant claimed that the show cause notice was not issued in his name, violating section 24(2) of the Act of 1988. The Tribunal referred to the provision, which requires a copy of the notice to be issued to the beneficial owner if their identity is known. The Tribunal found that a copy of the notice was indeed sent to the appellant, and he had acknowledged receipt and responded to it. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed this argument, finding compliance with section 24(2). 5. Approval under Section 24(4)(A)(i): The appellant alleged that the respondents failed to produce the approval of the order under section 24(4)(A)(i) of the Act of 1988. The Tribunal found that the approval was granted by the Competent Authority and was part of the record. The respondents were directed to place the order of approval on record, which was done. The Tribunal concluded that the compliance with section 24(4)(A)(i) was met and dismissed this argument. Conclusion: The Tribunal found no merit in any of the issues raised by the appellant. The appeal was dismissed, and the impugned order was upheld.
|
