9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 298X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... involve conviction of the person rather is taken up on revenue side. The marked difference between two types of proceedings has to recognized. For conviction of a person there would be necessity to apply the process given under CrPC and even under Evidence Act which is not mandated for the proceedings by the Revenue for attachment or for imposition of penalty. In the light of the aforesaid, we are unable to accept first argument raised by the appellant. Since we have decided the first issue against the appellant and thereby sworn statement u/s 132(4) of Income Tax Act can be relied even in the proceedings under the Act of 1988. The respondents were not under obligation to record separate statement by holding enquiry. In fact, the Initiating Officer had taken up issues while passing the order and appeal before the Adjudicating Authority, all the issues raised by the Appellants were threshold decided. The argument of Appellant is that even the chits in the name of the Appellant were out of the sources disclosed by him while it is a fact that in the statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Income Tax Act it was admitted that chit fund was operated at the instance of Rajesh of M.R. Trader ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lture land, which was otherwise deposited through cash and source could not be proved. The critical analysis of it has also been made by the Adjudicating Authority and it has not been questioned. - JUSTICE MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI : CHAIRMAN And SHRI BALESH KUMAR : MEMBER For the Appellants : Mr. Shameem Ahamed, Adv. And Mr. Kanhaiya Singhal, SPP ORDER By this batch of appeals, challenge has been made to the order dated 14.02.2019 passed by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority u/s 26(3) of PBPT Act, 1988. By the impugned order, the Adjudicating Authority confirmed the order dated 14.12.2018 passed by the Initiating Officer, BPU, Kochi for attachment of sum of Rs.3,50,000/- towards chit funds in the name of the appellants and another maturity value of the chit funds of Rs.25,00,000/-. It is apart from other properties. 2.The brief facts set up by the Appellant is that he was engaged in agricultural activities and running the business of poultry farm. He was working as part time employee also with one M.R. Traders in April 2017. A search was conducted in the business premises of M/s M.R. Traders by Income Tax Department. During the search, the statement of the appellant was recorded. He w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... receive the proceed out of it but treated to be benami. 8.Ld. Counsel for the appellant referred to the certificate issued by the VEO of the Village to certify that appellant was having 0.2752 hectares of land and doing poultry farming in the land for last ten years. The certificate aforesaid was sufficient to prove not only existence of land and poultry with the appellant but income arising out of it. Another certificate is again of VDO of Agali Village certifying that appellant was having 0.5160 hectares of land and he was having banana and coconut plantation apart from vegetables in the land. 9.Certificate aforesaid was sufficient to prove the income. Apart from the aforesaid, the appellant had even furnished a licence dated 08.08.2003 for running of the poultry farm. Though it was for the period of one year but proves poultry business of the appellant. A certificate dated 28.06.2007 was further submitted to indicate allowable capacity of 2,000 boiler chicken in the poultry farm. The certificate aforesaid was given by the veterinary surgeon. 10.The appellant had even produced a sale deed dated 10.10.2013 for purchase of land for sum of Rs.3,50,000/-. The Bank Statements were als ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... K. R. Radhakrishnan in his sworn statement dated 26.09.2017]. In Reference No.1122/2018 Details of the Benami Property Maturity Value of Rs.25,00,000/- in respect of Rs.1,25,000/- monthly chit with Shree Golulam Chits Finance [Ticket No.G2L/1202/KDM/06] made in the name of Sri. K. R. Radhakrishnan by Sri. Melapaka Rajesh [As deposed by Sri K. R. Radhakrishnan in his sworn statement dated 26.09.2017]. 13.The perusal of the details of the Benami properties reflect the issue taken up in the impugned order. However, present appeal is arising out of the Ref. No.1121/2018, which is only for the Chitt s. Thus, it is restricted to the maturity amount of chit funds leaving other properties because the Counsel for the Appellant also submitted that the appeal against other reference has not been filed by him. 14.It is a fact that a search was conducted by the Income Tax Dept. on M/s M.R. Traders u/s 132(1) of the Income Tax Act. The statements were recorded u/s 132(4) of the Income Tax Act during search. In the statement, the appellant had accepted purchase of the assets which includes the chit funds by Rajesh in his name. Though, subsequently it was stated that statement was wrongly recorde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ile relying on the sworn statement under the Income Tax Act the authorities therein would pass an order based on the statement while the authorities under any other statute would refrain to do it rather for that they have to record separate statement again for the same person which may be made with afterthought because statement u/s 132(4) are recorded during the course of the search by the Income Tax Dept. If assuming the statement under any other proceedings are also recorded and it is found to be diverse to the earlier statement under the Income Tax Act, the consequence would be serious. It may result in diver s ant finding in the proceedings under two different authorities under different statute but relating to the same property and incidence. Therefore, the issue in reference to it has been settled by Bombay High Court where a similar argument was made that the sworn statement u/s 108 of the Custom Act cannot be relied for any proceedings under different statute. The Bombay High Court in the case of Vinod M. Chitalia Vs. Union of India in Fera Appeal No.8 of 2012 held that the statement recorded u/s 108 of Custom Act can be relied in other adjudicating proceedings. The releva ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... parate statement by holding enquiry. In fact, the Initiating Officer had taken up issues while passing the order and appeal before the Adjudicating Authority, all the issues raised by the Appellants were threshold decided. 19.The argument of the Counsel for the Appellant is that even the chits in the name of the Appellant were out of the sources disclosed by him while it is a fact that in the statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Income Tax Act it was admitted that chit fund was operated at the instance of Rajesh of M.R. Traders. The arguments have been raised against the sworn statement of the Appellant and others to prove the case. It is apart from the fact that the appellant failed to produce a document to prove income from poultry or agriculture while the certificate of VEO was submitted. It is said to be based on the enquiry and not in reference to revenue record. VEO is custodian of revenue record and could have certified the agricultural activities on the land, but the certificate issued by him was based on the information and not the revenue record. Thus, the Adjudicating Authority rightly clarified the position aforesaid to hold it to be case of benami transaction. 20.It is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the F.Y. 2013-14. (b)An amount of Rs.4,00,100/- was remitted in cash in his SB account number 7205 with Sount Indian Bank, Pyrimethamine Branch on 11.05.2015. The same is not reflected in the CFS filed for the FY 2015-16. (c)In the CFS filed for the FY 2017-18, an amount of Rs.12,00,000/- is shown as the payment made to MR Payable account (M R means Beneficial Owner Shri M. Rajesh). But, on perusal of the bank account copy in respect of the benamidar account number 67443with federal Bank, Karinkalathanni branch, it was found that an amount of Rs.23,64,000/- was transferred to the business concerns of the Beneficial owner Shri M. Rajesh. (d)In the CFS filed for the FY 2017-18, an amount of Rs.3,30,536/- is shown as the payment made to Federal Bank OD Replayed account. But, on perusal of the bank account copy in respect of the benamidar OD account number 1399 with federal Bank, Karinkalathanni branch, it was found that an amount of Rs.4,44,216/- was deposited in that account as repayment during the FY 2017-18. (e)As the amounts deposited in the bank accounts are not reflected in the CFS, the same is liable to be rejected. (f)Benamidar is an employee of the beneficial owner and has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
