2025 (4) TMI 777 - AT - Benami Property

Benami Property Transactions - provisional attachment - determination of the transaction s nature - HELD THAT - It is not disputed that M/s RK Emporium is not a shell company. The absence of Benamidars and the non-representation of them in the proceedings cannot lead to presumption of them being shell companies. Receiving payment two months in advance from M/s KS Traders who have a valid PAN ID particularly when no transaction has ever happened between M/s KS Traders and M/s RK Emporium is a possibility which cannot be ruled out in the realm of trading business. Appellant has shown that in order to make supplies to M/s KS Traders it had to procure in turn from its suppliers which have been identified by the Appellant. The investigation has failed to explain the existence of bilties and the account details of the transporter. Receipt of bank credit within three days of initiation of demonetization is a suspicious circumstance and therefore causing of investigation was warranted. However the ensuing investigation failed to bring out evidence which would make the explanation of the Beneficial Owner as cooked up story. We find that the Impugned Order has failed to bring out that the impugned transaction is benami within the import of Section 2(9)(A) of PBPTA. We therefore set aside the Impugned Order and the confirmation as well as the Provisional Attachment of the impugned property of Rs.1, 12, 00, 000/- (Rupees One Crore and Twelve Lakhs Only) deposited in the bank account of the Appellant maintained with Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Ludhiana. The Appeal is accordingly allowed.

Summary

ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The central issues considered in this judgment are as follows:

• Whether the transaction involving Rs.1,12,00,000/- credited to the account of M/s RK Emporium by M/s KS Traders constitutes a benami transaction under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 (PBPTA).
• Whether the provisional attachment of the amount by the Adjudicating Authority was justified based on the evidence presented.
• Whether the absence of the alleged benamidars in the proceedings impacts the determination of the transaction's nature.
• Whether the evidence presented by the Appellant was sufficient to demonstrate that the transaction was a genuine business transaction.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

1. Nature of the Transaction under PBPTA

The relevant legal framework involves the definition of a benami transaction under Section 2(9)(A) of the PBPTA. The Court examined whether the transaction was a sham designed to legalize demonetized currency.

The Court found no evidence that the Appellant infused or deposited money into the accounts of the alleged benamidars, M/s Sagar Enterprises and M/s KS Traders. The Respondent's argument that M/s KS Traders was a shell firm was scrutinized, and the Court noted the presence of invoices and other documentation supporting the Appellant's claim of genuine business transactions.

While the Respondent highlighted the suspicious timing of the transaction during demonetization, the Court determined that the evidence was insufficient to prove the transaction was benami.

2. Justification for Provisional Attachment

The provisional attachment was based on the suspicion of a benami transaction. The Court noted that the Impugned Order lacked specific evidence to confirm the attachment. The investigation referred to in the Impugned Order did not provide concrete findings against the Appellant.

The Court emphasized that the absence of the benamidars in the proceedings could not be used to presume the transaction's benami nature. The Appellant's consistent filing of Income Tax Returns and the existence of valid PAN IDs for the parties involved were considered significant.

3. Evidence of Genuine Business Transaction

The Appellant provided documentation, including sale and purchase invoices, bilties, and transport details, to support the claim of a genuine business transaction. The Court reviewed these documents and found them consistent with the Appellant's narrative.

The Respondent's argument that the transport vehicles were unfit for road use was not substantiated with binding evidence. The Court also noted that the Appellant made payments through banking channels and deducted TDS, further supporting the legitimacy of the transactions.

SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

The Court held that the Impugned Order failed to demonstrate that the transaction was benami under Section 2(9)(A) of the PBPTA. The absence of evidence supporting the provisional attachment led to the conclusion that the transaction was genuine.

The Court set aside the Impugned Order and the confirmation of the provisional attachment, allowing the appeal and disposing of the application.

Core Principles Established:

• The mere absence of alleged benamidars in proceedings does not automatically render a transaction benami.
• Documentary evidence, such as invoices, bilties, and tax filings, play a crucial role in determining the nature of a transaction.
• Suspicious timing of transactions, such as during demonetization, requires thorough investigation and concrete evidence to substantiate claims of benami transactions.

Final Determinations:

• The transaction involving Rs.1,12,00,000/- was not a benami transaction under the PBPTA.
• The provisional attachment of the amount was not justified based on the evidence presented.
• The appeal was allowed, and the application was disposed of, effectively reversing the Impugned Order.