9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 323X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lso not been prosecuted as an accused under PMLA.
We find that the parameters of classifying a transaction as either Benami or Money Laundering are separate, as is evident from the definition clauses of PBPTA and PMLA. Moreover, the investigation has itself revealed that the funds were transferred from M/s Yashawini Exports, which is owned and controlled by Shri Yogesh Mittal and not By Shri Ravindra Kumar, the alleged Beneficial Owner. Appeal dismissed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s interpretation of law and facts. Ld. Counsel argued that based on the surrounding facts and circumstances of the case, the only reasonable inference which could have been drawn is that the Beneficial Owner, Shri Ravindra Kumar, Proprietor, M/s R K Emporium had engaged in Benami Transactions as defined under Section 2(9)(A) of the PBPTA. 4. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant argued that the Ld. Adjudicating Authority failed to take into consideration the surrounding circumstances of the present case, whereby the transactions were undertaken during the period of demonetization of 2016. Ld. Counsel argued that by looking at the entire series of transactions, it can be inferred that Shri Ramesh Chand, Respondent No. 1, used his bank accounts in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t argued that the Respondent No. 2, Shri Ravindra Kumar, Proprietor, M/s R K Emporium was not engaged in genuine and legitimate transaction for purchase and sale of goods, as is evident from the fact that the Benamidar, that is Respondent No. 1 had not appeared before the Ld. Adjudicating Authority to plead his case. 7. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant pleaded to allow the appeal and set aside the orders of the Ld. Adjudicating Authority whereby, the Provisional Attachment Order dated 27.02.2018 was not confirmed. 8. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent argued that the Ld. Adjudicating Authority issued a well-reasoned order based on proper application of mind. Ld. Counsel stated that the Ld. Adjudicating Authority had correctly not confirmed the P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orter, M/s Rammat Transport Corporation, Delhi through banking channels, and the Tax Deducted at Source ("TDS") was also done from the same. Ld. Counsel argued that the documentary evidences, that is, bitlies cannot be ignored on the vague ground that vehicles used for transportations were not in possession of the requisite fitness certificates. 12. Based on the facts, circumstances and evidence on record, Ld. Counsel stated there is no proof that the Beneficial Owner was engaged in a Benami Transaction within the import of Section 2(9) of the PBPTA. Ld. Counsel argued that the case of the Appellant Department is based on allegations and surmises, with no evidence to prove that there was an infusion of demonetised cash by the Beneficial Ow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submitted by the Respondent No. 2, contain certain particulars which do point towards genuine business transactions. The Respondent has also submitted account opening forms along with the Sole Proprietorship Declaration Form of M/s R K International and M/s Virgo International, which are dated 05.09.2016. 16. We have also perused the invoices and the bitlies submitted by the Respondent No. 2. We note that that payments were made by Shri Ravindra Kumar, Proprietor, M/s R K Emporium, Respondent No. 2 to the transporter, M/s Rammat Transport Corporation, Delhi through banking channels, and the TDS was deducted from the same. Even though the Ld. Adjudicating Authority had not recorded its observation on the possession of the requisite fitness ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
