Smt. Radhamani A Vs ACIT (Appellate Tribunal Under SAFEMA At Delhi)
ITAT Delhi held that the present appeal filed by benamidar is dismissed since the benamidar was unable to explain the source of funds for acquiring the impugned property. However, the issue regarding beneficial owner is kept open for investigation.
Facts- The present appeal u/s 46(1) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 is filed by the appellant Smt. Radhamani A. (alleged benamidar) against the order dated 29.05.2019 passed by the Adjudicating Authority u/s 26(3) of the PBPT Act, in reference No. R-828/2018, whereby the Provisional Attachment Order dated 15.05.2018 passed by the Initiating Officer u/s 24(4) of the PBPT Act was confirmed qua the property of the appellant/alleged benamidar Smt. Radhamani A.
Conclusion- Held that issues no. i) and ii) are decided against the appellant, as she has not explained the sources of funds for acquiring the impugned property; the ITRs of 5 years were filed 30.11.2017 as an afterthought strategy; original lease deed not produced; and the copy of the lease deed is a forged document, in absence of any corroborative evidence like her bank statement showing receiving the monthly rent of Rs. 80,000/-, before taking the alleged advance rent of Rs. 9,09,000/-.
