Lakshya Jewels Vs Initiating Officer (Appellate Tribunal Under SAFEMA Delhi)
The Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA, New Delhi, considered Appeal No. FPA-PBPT-168/MUM/2018 filed by M/s Lakshya Jewels against the order dated 27.09.2018 passed by the Adjudicating Authority under Section 26(3) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 (PBPTA). The Adjudicating Authority had confirmed the Provisional Attachment Order dated 19.06.2017 passed by the Initiating Officer under Section 24(3) of the PBPTA. The attachment covered Rs.98,00,000 lying in various bank accounts in the name of M/s Lakshya Jewels.
The appellant’s authorised representative argued that the allegation was based principally on the statement of Shri Asit B. Doshi, alleged to be the Benamidar. It was contended that there was no evidence establishing that the cash belonged to Lakshya Jewels and that the appellant had not been given an opportunity to cross-examine Shri Doshi or Shri Mahesh Mangal, who was stated to have contacted Shri Doshi for depositing old currency notes.
The appellant maintained that the RTGS credits received from Marina Trading, Jai Ambe Enterprises and Aman Enterprises represented genuine sale proceeds for gold. It submitted that it had purchased gold from Vimalson Jewellers, made payment through its bank account, and subsequently issued sales bills to the three entities. Various documents were relied upon, including purchase bills, ledger confirmation, sales bills, bank statements, stock statements, purchase and sales registers, VAT returns, and income-tax returns and financial statements.
