OM PRAKASH GUPTA,SAWAI MADHOPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -1, JAIPUR

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR

Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k
BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, vk;dj vihy la-@ITA Nos. 395 to 401/JP/2025
fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2013-14 to 2019-20
Central Circle-01,
Jaipur
LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ABNPG3260C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Tarun Mittal, CA &
Shri Harshit Agarwal, CA, jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR &
Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-Sr. DR lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 20/08/2025
mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 18/09/2025

vkns'k@ ORDER

PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM

The present bunch of seven appeals have been filed by the above- named assessee, as the assessee was aggrieved from the orders of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) 04, Jaipur [ for short CIT(A)] for the assessment years 2013-14 to 2019-20 dated 28.02.2025. That order was passed by ld. CIT(A) because the assessee challenged the order of Om Prakash Gupta vs. DCIT assessment all dated 17.07.2021, 16.07.2021,15.07.2021 & 03.08.2021
passed u/s. 153A & 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [ for short Act ] by DCIT, Central Circle – 1, Jaipur [ for short AO ].

Considering that together with the agree by this consolidated ord
3
ITA
Om aspect of the matter, these app ement of both the parties and are b der.
A Nos. 395 to 401/JP/2025
395/JP/2025 for A.Y 2013-14 may be taken as a lead case for discussions for which ld. DR did not raise any objections. So, before moving towards the facts of the lead case we would like to mention that the assessee in this appeal has raised the following grounds;
1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in confirming the action of ld. AO is passing order u/s 153A of the Income Tax Act, arbitrarily.

The assessee Shri Om Prakash Gupta made deposits in the bank account of Shri Ram Singh Meena and all the amounts were provided by the assessee or his group persons/concerns only.
Shri Om Prakash also did not file any reply to the detailed Show Cause Notices issued u/s 24(1) of the PBPT Act to Shri Ram Singh Meena served upon him despite ample opportunities given.

This bank account was never used by Shri Ram Singh Meena but was used by Shri Om Prakash Gupta only for his own benefits.

Shri Rajesh Kabra is a close relative and confident of Shri Om Prakash Gupta
Therefore, Shri Om Prakash Gupta took a power of attorney from Shri Ram
Singh Meena in the name of Shri Rajesh Kabra and bank account of Shri Ram
Singh Meena was also operated and controlled by Shn Om Prakash Gupta through Shri Rajesh Kabra.

Bank account in the name of Shri Ram Singh Meena was opened inKotak
Mahindra Bank. Sardar Patel Marg, Jaipur and used and operated by Shri
Rajesh Kabra for the sole benefit of Shri Om Prakash Gupta.

Net and mobile banking facility was availed on mobile number 9414045253
(belongs to Shri Rachit Agarwal s/o Shri Om Prakash Gupta) and e-mail id
"info.omgroup@gmail.com", is the registered e-mail id of the bank account number 5111215909 opened in the name of Shri Ram Singh Meena in Kotak
Mahindra Bank. Sardar Patel Marg, Jaipur. Similarly, mobile number
9414045253 is the registered. mobile number of this bank account.

On examination of the material available on record, it has been found that the transactions carried out in the bank account number 5111215909 opened in the name of Shri Ram Singh Meena in Kotak Mahindra Bank, Sardar patel Marg,
Jaipur branch were not camed out by Shri Ram Singh Meena but were made by Shin Om Prakash Gupta only. Thus, all these transactions are benami transactions and the money kept in this bank account is a benami property of Shri Om Prakash Gupta

The year in which lands were sold on behalf of Shri Ram Singh Meena, income from business and profession has been shown at Rs. Nil and income from capital gain has been shown whereas in the rest ofyears income from business and profession has been shown in the ITRs filed in the name of Shri Ram Singh
Meena.

The appellant has submitted that a search action u/s 132 was carried out by the Income Tax Department in the case of Om Transport Group, on 16 1.2019, to which assessee belongs. As stated by Id.AO, during the course of search, various loose papers/documents were found and seized, including certain documents found at the office premises of M/s Om Shree Ram Infra Real Pvt. Ltd., which inter-alia included cheque books, deposition slips etc of bank account No.
5111215909 of Sh. Ram Singh s/o Sh. Ramkaran Singh (who was known to assessee) maintained with Kotak Mahindra Bank, C Scheme, Jaipur Ld.AO held that deposits in this bank account held by Sh. Ram Singh were beneficially owned by the appellant and it was further held that the said bank account was used for purchasing properties in the name of Sh. Ram Singh and said properties were beneficially owned by the appellant.

The appellant has challenged the action of Id. AO in making addition on account of deposits made in the bank account of Sh. Ram Singh Meena and investment made by him in purchase of properties. In brief, the appellant has raised following issues:-

(i) Addition w.r.t. entries of cheques dishonoured/ payment stopped by drawer-

The appellant has contended that while making addition on account of deposits in bank account, Id.AO has added all the credit entries in the bank statements, including the entries of cheques dishonored/payment stopped by drawer. Such entries are not deposit entries and rather are cancellation of preceding debit entry. Detail of addition made by Id AO vis-à-vis Quantum of such entries of cheques dishonoured/ payment stopped by drawer for both the A.Y. 2013-14 and 2014-15 is as under as submitted by the appellant.
Appellant has pleaded that addition to the tune of Rs. 1,95,61,667/- in A.Y 2013-
14 ad Rs. 14,60,000/- made in A.Y. 2014-15 deserves to be deleted outrightly.

(ii) Addition of both credits in bank account and properties purchased out of such bank balance:-

The appellant has contended that that Id.AO on one hand added deposits in bank account and on the other hand, made addition on account of investment in properties which was made out of such bank account only. Your goodself would appreciate that in this manner, Id. AO has added both source as well as application separately, resulting into double taxation of same income Appellant has relied upon the judgements in this regard

(iii) Cross examination of Sh. Ram Singh Meena not provided and Retraction of statements: -

Appellant has contended that the Id AO has relied upon statements of Sh. Ram
Singh Meena, recorded behind the back of assessee and that too by some other authority, without even providing the opportunity of cross examination of the same to the assessee. The principles of natural justice are an inalienable part of the Income-tax law as provided under various provisions of the Act, including, audi alteram partem, i.e., no man should be condemned unheard During the course of assessment proceedings, assessee came to know that Sh. Ram Singh Meena has filed a retraction affidavit before the ADIT (Inv Kota, whereby statements given by him during proceedings under PBPT Act (on the basis of which present assessment is based), stood retracted. During assessmen proceedings, this fact of retraction of statements given by Sh. Ram Singh was dul communicated before ld.AO and stood uncorroborated. The appellant has contended that addition is mainly based on the statements of many persons recorded under section 131 of Om Prakash Gupta vs. DCIT the Income Tax Act, but during the proceedings under PBPTA all of them have retracted the earlier statements. Ld.AO has also referred about of Sh. Rajesh
Kabra, to whom Sh. Ram Singh Meena had given Power of Attorney. Appellant came to know that statement of Sh. Rajesh Kabra were recorded by the department. Appellant on request to Sh. Rajesh Kabra got the copy of his statement It is submitted that, Sh. Rajesh Kabra, in his statement has averred that he was operating bank account and managing property transactions of Sh. Ram
Singh Meena on his behalf and not on behalf of Sh. O.P. Gupta and that statements of both of them were in contradiction to each other. Addition made by Id.AO solely on the basis of statements of Sh. Ram Singh Meena as recorded by other authorities during proceedings under PBPT Act behind the back of assessee which also stood retracted and without conducting any independent enquiry during assessment proceedings, without giving opportunity cross examination to assessee and without even controverting such retraction deserves to be deleted.

(iv) There is no credit in the name of assessee appellant in bank account of Sh.
Ram Singh Meena:-

Appellant has referred to the bank statement of Sh. Ram Singh Meena (APB 96-
111) of bank account no.5111215909 maintained with Kotak Mahindra Bank and contended that the total deposits in this account during the Assessment year
2013-14 and 2014-15 were Rs. 5,99,06,500/-and Rs 6,26,16,011/-respectively as against Rs. 7,94,79,167/- and Rs. 6,40,70,011/- as mentioned by Id AO in the assessment order. It is not understood as to from where the amount of deposits have been taken by Id.AO. Apart from this, Id. AO has made addition to the tune of Rs 16,09,07,0148/- on account of Investment made by Sh Ram Singh Meena in properties by alleging him as benamidar and treating the assessee as beneficial owner of such properties. As per copy of bank statement (APB 96-111) of Sh. Ram Singh and his bank book (APB 112-117), wherein not a single transfer is made by assessee and status of assessee in his "Individual capacity is separate and distinct from any of his group concerns. Details of credits made in this bank account are as under:
All the advances have been made by company to Sh. Ram Singh Meena, through banking channels, are out of its disclosed sources of income, on which due taxes have been paid. It is submitted that a company is duly incorporated under law and is treated as separate legal Juristic person under the eyes of law which is different from s shareholders/directors. The shareholders may have beneficial interest in the assets of the company through their shareholding in the company but they are never deemed to be owner themselves of the assets/properties of the company

Ld. AO has failed to prove with any cogent evidence that any single amount transferred to the bank account of Sh. Ram Singh Meena was paid by the assessee. Some of the properties purchased by Sh. Ram Singh Meena, in respect of which assessed was held as beneficial owner, were sold by Sh. Ram
Singh Meena to third parties whereas some of them were held by Sh. Ram Singh
Meena as Stock

(v) Sh. Ram Singh Meena has done independent disclosures-

Appellant has contended that there is no doubt with regards to identity of Sh. Ram
Singh Meena S/o Shri Ram Karan Meena as he physically appeared before
Income Tax Department and deposed his statements in front of the government officials as has been referred by Id AO himself. Immovable properties purchased/sold by Ram Singh Meena are in his individual capacity and he only could explain the purpose and source of purchase of such property and selling thereof. Amount so advanced to Ram Singh Meena is not given by Shri O.P.
Gupta and hence he cannot be considered as the beneficial owner. Any amount given by any of the company/ firm, which are related to any family member of Shri
(b) During the search and seizure action the (i) cheque book of the bank account which was in the name of Sh Ram Singh Meena was found along with the (1) counterfoils, (ii) deposit slips, (u) request made for RTGS were found. Further the documents regarding conversion of land related Sh. Ram Singh were also found during the search action (refer page 224 to 225 of Annexure AS-11 and other documents).

These along with other evidences on record shows that these were owned by the appellant. Presumption provided under section 132(4A) and 292C is also applicable

In the Internet banking facility of this impugned bank account the mobile number of Sh Rachit Aggrwal (son of appellant) had been registered. Further e-mail id
"info.omgroup@gmail.com", is the registered e-mail id of the bank account number 5111215909 opened in the name of Shri Ram Singh Meena in Kotak
Mahindra Bank, Sardar Patel Marg, Jaipur. This along with other evidences on record shows that the bank account was being operated by and on behalf of the appellant

During the course of search and seizure action specific queries were raised to Sh.
Rachit Aggarwal on the issue in statement recorded on 18.01.2019. It was noticed during the course of search and seizure action that the group concerns of the appellant had carried out multiple land deals inter-alia with Sh.
Ram Singh Meena and in Q.21 of search statement, it was asked how he was related. In reply it was stated that "We have advanced interest-bearing loans to Shri Ram Singh Meena". Further in Q.22 it was asked whether any of the group concern purchased any land from Sh. Ram Singh Meena. In reply it was stated that M/s Amigo Hotels in which Sh. Rachit was partner purchased one land from Om Prakash Gupta vs. DCIT

Shri Ram Singh Meena. In Q.23, it was highlighted that original bank file of Shri
Ram Singh Meena containing Bank transaction slips and other bank documents of Shri Ram Singh Meena was found at appellant group's office premises and seized as annexure AS-6 and it was asked to explain the reasons for why these documents were available at appellant group's office. In reply it was accepted and acknowledged that the documents were kept in the office for safekeeping

Further, in Q 24, it was highlighted that on perusal of KYC documents of Shri
Ram Singh Meena, the mobile number of Shri Rachit Aggarwal had been given
(in the KYC documents) and the reason for the same was asked. However in reply a non-effective denial was stated that Shri Rachit was not aware of the same. This is important because regular banking transactions were taking place in the bank account in the name of Shri Ram Singh Meena and it is a matter of common knowledge that the SMS updates are sent on the mobile numbers Thus on the one hand the messages of the transactions were being received on the mobile number, on the other hand it was denied that he was not aware of the giving his mobile number in the KYC

Further it was noted during the course of search and seizure action that Shri Ram
Singh Meena is a person of low means and funds given by appellant's group companies as loans have been used by him to purchase properties which have been further sold to appellant's group. It was also noted that Shri Rachit controls the bank account in his name because the original bank documents were found in their office and his mobile number had been given in the bank statement KYC of Shri Ram Singh Meena Further was noted in the search and setzure proceedings that prima facie Shri Ram Singh Meena is benamidaar whose name has been used by appellant's group to purchase benami properties. These findings of the search and seizure proceedings were highlighted in question number 25 to Sh
During the appellate proceedings the appellant was requested to submit inter-alia
(0) copies of the bank documents relating to Sh. Ram Singh Meena in the seized material, (i) copies of the replies submitted to Investigation Officer (DDIT
Investigation) on these documents, etc. However the appellant has not submitted the same.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Krishnamurthy vs The Deputy
Commissioner of Income Tax [Civil Appeal No. 2411 of 2025 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C)No.943 of 2023)) in the context of penalty u/s 271AAA of the Act has held as under-

As per the ratio of the above judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court,

•
the step of post-search further interrogation (of party/ies other the party on whom search took action took place) itself and recovery from the same,

•
step of post search further investigation (of party/les other the party on whom search took action took place) itself and the recovery from the same, fall within the expression 'found in the course of search, when an earlier search action led to such further interrogation or such further investigation.

The expression 'found in the course of search is of a wide amplitude.

In the statement recorded u/s 131 on 17.01.2019. Shri Ram Singh has inter-alia stated and admitted that Om Prakash Gupta vs. DCIT

1) he had put his signatures on various papers and cheques and he was not aware about the bank name and also the amount mentioned in the cheques;
2) he has also put his signatures many times on blank cheques,
3) he had never visited any bank for opening any bank account:
4) he had put his signature on various papers as per instruction of Shri Om
Agarwal (ie. the appellant).
5) In reply to Q. No. 33, he had accepted that the photo, identity proof and signatures put on the account opening form (Kotak Mahindra Bank) were of him but he was not aware of the transactions routed in the bank account No.
5111215909 held in Kotak Mahindra Bank in his name.
6) he was not aware about the source of deposit in the bank account held in his name in Kotak Mahindra Bank, he was not aware about any withdrawal made in the bank account held in his name:

In reply to Q.No. 33, he had accepted that he was neither aware of the source of deposits other than cash in the bank account held in his hame in Kotak Mahindra
Bank nor about withdrawal made therefrom

7) In reply to Q. No. 36, he had accepted that he was not aware of the possession of bank pass book and cheque book of the bank account held in his name in Kotak Mahindra Bank and stated that only Shri Om Agarwal (appellant) can tell about this 8) Sh. Ram Singh Meena in reply to Q No. 11 of his statement recorded stated that some lands in Jaipur were purchased in his name but he had not purchased these lands and he had signed on these registry documents as per instructions of Sh. Om Agarwal of Om Transport Company.

9) In reply to Q.No.25, he admitted that he had never seen the original registry documents which were purchased in his name on the instruction of Sh. Om
Agarwal (appellant) and he doesn't know about whereabouts of the same and only Sh. Om Agarwal (appellant) may tell about these registry documents

10) Sh. Ram Singh Meena in reply to Q.No. 14 of his statement recorded stated that he had signed several times on cheques and documents as per instructions of Sh. Om Agarwal (appellant) and was not aware of the amount and bank to which same pertains. He had also signed on blank cheques several times.

11) In reply to Q.No.21 & 22, he admitted that he does not maintain any books of account and had not given any documents/particulars to any C.A.
Holder of Shri Ram Singh Meena) as a conduit to make such transactions. The following factual conclusions of The DCIT( Benami Prohibition), Rajasthan (where detailed investigation has been made in this case) as noted in the assessment order are relevant to the present case under Income Tax Act-

•
Sh. Ram Singh Meena is a person of little means. He does not have credit worthiness to make such huge deposits in their bank account.

•
Bank account in the name of Shri Ram Singh Meena was opened in Kotak
Mahindra Bank, Sardar Patel Marg, Jaipur and used and operated by Shn
Rajesh Kabra for the sole benefit of Shri Om Prakash Gupta.

•
Shn Rajesh Kabra is a close relative and confident of Shri Om Prakash
Gupta. Sh Rajesh Kabra is also partner in Om Developers along with Sh.
Rachit Agarwal Therefore, Shri Om Prakash Gupta took a power of attorney from Shri Ram Singh Meena in the name of Shri Rajesh Kabra and bank account of Shri Ram Singh Meena was also operated and controlled by Shn Om Prakash Gupta through Shri Rajesh Kabra

•
Net and mobile banking facility was availed on mobile number 9414045253
(belongs to Shri Rachit Agarwal s/o Shri Om Prakash Gupta) and e-mail id
"info.omgroup@gmail.com", is the registered e-mail id of the bank account number 5111215909 opened in the name of Shri Ram Singh Meena in Kotak Mahindra Bank, Sardar Patel Marg, Jaipur. Similarly, mobile number
9414045253 is the registered mobile number of this bank account.

•
•
The appellant Shri Om Prakash Gupta made deposits in the bank account of Shri Ram Singh Meena and all the amounts were provided by the assessee or his group persons/concerns only

•
This bank account was never used by the above person but were used by Shri Om Prakash Gupta only for his own benefits.

•
Shri Om Prakash Gupta opened and operated the bank accounts in the name of Shri Ram Singh Meena and carried out transactions in these bank accounts as accepted by him in the statement taken.

•
Shri Om Prakash Gupta got the books of accounts prepared in the name of Shri Ram Singh Meena and got the ITRs filed in the name of Shri Ram
Singh Meena to claim that the transactions of lands carried out by him in the name of Shri Ram Singh Meena are genuine transactions

•
The above person did not file any reply to the Show Cause Notices issued to them despite ample opportunities given from time to time. The preliminary objections raised were disposed off by the DCIT(BPU) by passing a speaking order.

•
The appellant Shri Om Prakash also did not file any reply to the detailed
Show Cause Notices issued u/s 24(1) of the PBPT Act to Shri Ram Singh
Meena. He showed no knowledge of the reasoning and source of funds and transaction details etc. in the statement. He has projected his conduct in the manner of a robotic person working as per instructions of master and not showed his knowledge which a close friend should have had •
In Q. No. 51 & 52, on being asked that had he not asked Sh. Ram Singh
Meena that as to where he remained so busy that he did not had any time to sign on the registry documents and he had to give power of attorney to him, he replied that he had not asked from Sh. Ram Singh Meena and only
Sh Ram Singh Meena can tell about this.

•
In Q. No 55 to 57, when he was asked to how it can be accepted that Sh.
Ram Singh Meena had time to see the lands but had not time to sign the registry documents and had he ever asked the same from him and if not, reason thereof. he replied that he never asked this from Sh. Ram Singh
Meena and there was no specific reason for this.

•
In Q. No 62, on being asked that if Sh. Ram Singh Meena was looking the land on his own, Making the deal on his own giving the post dated cheque on his own then what problem he had to sign the registry documents as purchaser, he replied that only Sh. Ram Singh Meena can tell about this •
In Q. No. 64, on being asked as to why Sh. Ram Singh Meena used to get the nomination opened after registration, he replied that on half occasions he used to provide registry to patwari and on other occasions Sh. Ram
Singh Meena himself

•
In Q. No. 83 on being asked about the land purchased by Sh. Ram Singh
Meena from Ramjila Meena, which was signed by him that how poor man
Sh. Ram Singh Meena of mainpura village arranged so much money, he replied that this can be told by Sh. Ram Singh Only

•
Singh Meena issued in his favour in lieu of support/help provided to him, Get the bank account opened in Kotak Mahindra Bank, Sardar Patel Marg, get the payment made to sellers from this bank account after transferring money to this account from his companies and get the registry of land made in the name of Sh
Ram Singh Meena on which he had signed as purchaser on the basis of power of attorney. In this way the land were purchased on delhi road in a planned manner which is in violation of Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Act, 1988 and he is also became part of it. In the reply, he stated that he don't know about this.

Sh. Rajesh Kabra accepted that he was keeping blank cheques of Shri Ram
Singh Meena. In reply to Q. No 91, he stated that as per instructions of Sh. Ram
Singh Meena. he had also signed on cheques of Sh Ram Singh Meena which is also mentioned in power of attorney. In Q. No. 102 on being asked that as he has stated that he used to return the unused cheques to Sh. Ram Singh Meena while meeting him at Bus stand, Railway Station or on the way, but during search proceedings, some cheques were found from the office of Sh. Om Agarwal situated at C-Scheme. On being asked about the reason thereof, he stated that they might be left there by mistake and he has no knowledge of it In reply to Q. 31, Sh. Rajesh Kabra has given statements to the effect that there was several obligation of Sh. Om Agarwal on him and he was under obligation to him and he could anything for him. In reply to Q.29 he also stated that he used to be authorised by appellant's group for purchasing the properties.

During search in case of Sh. Rajesh Kabra, a Fortunner Car with Reg.
No.RJ14UF3456 was found standing at his house. In this regard he stated that the said car belongs to Sh Om Agarwal firm Om Real Developers. He was also having the key. On this he gave an unrealistic reply that the same was brought here for parking whereas office of appellant was 2-3 hours away. He also stated that he regularly visits the appellant 3-4 days in a week in his office for personal reasons and the reasoning in this regard is not as per human probabilities.
Ram Singh Meena. He acted swiftly because there was search action on appellant's group. At the same time the power of attorney was retumed to an employee of the appellant and not to Shri Ram Singh Meena and he did not even discuss this with Shri Ram Singh Meena and did not inform him. (Ref. Q. 40, 46 &
47). On the one hand the appellant has claimed that he was a very close friend and trusted associate of Shri Ram Singh Meena and on the other hand the appellant did not given information to him. These facts along with other facts of the case, show that the entire story of returning the power of attorney as told by Sh. Kabra is cooked up version

On the basis of statement recorded of Sh. Ram Singh Meena under oath, documents seized from the premises of Sh. Om Agarwal during Income Tax search proceedings. evidences available with the department and statement of Sh. Rajesh Kabra it is to be clear that:-

•
Sh. Rajesh Kabra is a relative and trustworthy person of Sh. Om Agarwal
(appellant) and he has obliged him with help. Sh. Ram Singh Meena is known to Sh. Om Agrawal since long and there was obligation of Sh. Om
Agarwal on him

•
Sh. Om Agarwal got the documents signed by Sh. Ram Singh Meena and get the bank account opened the in his name in Kotak Mahindra Bank. The email id and mobile number were given of family member of appellant to keep the control on correspondence and keep the internet banking in his control.

•
Sh. Om Agarwal got the power of attorney of Sh. Ram Singh Meena issued/signed in favour of Sh. Kabra for the purpose of registry, bank accounts, nomination etc. Blank cheques, documents, etc. without knowing the content, were signed by Shri Ram Singh Meena on the instructions of the appellant.

•
Agarwal got the money/cash transferred/deposited in bank account of Sh. Ram Singh Meena, Summary sheet of cheque book and large number of such deposits slips were seized from the office premises of Sh. Om Agarwal during search proceedings

•
Sh. Rajesh Kabra made payment to the sellers by signing on the cheques of bank account of Sh. Ram Singh Meena on the basis of power of attorney.
•
Sh. Rajesh Kabra made the nomination of land in favour of Sh. Ram Singh
Meena using this power of attorney.

•
The above mentioned whole proceedings were done in the name of Sh.
Ram Singh Meena by using his name

Further the facts of the case have been analysed in great details and further factual findings added in the order passed in the Benami proceedings and such factual findings are relevant to the income tax proceedings as well. The Id. AO also has referred and placed reliance on the factual findings in Benami proceedings. The same are referred to Some of the initial pages of the order under section 24(3) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Act, 1988
dated 05.03.2019 are as under-
6. On examination of the statement of the bank account no. 5111215909
held in Kotak Mahindra Bank, Sardar Patel Marg, Jaipur in the name of Shri Ram Singh Meena; it was observed that transactions of crores of rupees had been made in this bank account. Details of the transactions made in this bank account held in the name of Shri Ram Singh Meena
(from account opening date to 14.09.2018] are tabulated as under:
A/C number
A/C Type
Total of Credit transactions (In Rs.)
Total of debit transactions (in Rs.)
5111215909
Current
26,07,55,435
25,99,41,868
(i) From the above table, it was evident that crores of rupees had been credited and debited in the bank account held in the name of Shri Ram
Singh Meena. A consistent pattern was noticed on examination of the transactions executed in this bank account. Before issuing any cheque or making DDs or cash withdrawals from this bank account, immadiate credit entry(s) received in this bank account were mostly from the bank account of M/s Om Shree Ram Infrareal Private Limited.

(ii) Details of Cash Deposits in this bank account are as under:
9414045253. The email id info.omgroup@gmail.com was registered in this bank account which is the e-mail id of the group of Shri Om Prakash Gupta. Thus, it was evident that this bank account was being operated in the name of Shri Ram
Singh Meena by Shri Om Prakash Gupta Group.

(ix) On examination of bank statement of aforementioned bank account, it was gathered that there were total credits of ₹ 26,07,55,435 and total debits were at ₹
25,99,41,868 from account opening date to 14.09.2018. Major credit transactions were from M/s Om Shree Ram Infrareal Private Limited. This M/s Om Shree
Ram Infrareal Private Limited is a private limited company incorporated on 13.08.2012 having its registered office at 409-413, 4th Floor, Crops Arcade K-12,
Malviya Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur, Rajasthan 302001. As per data available on MCA website, Shri Ashok Kumar Agarwal, Shri Om Prakash
7. A Search & Seizure action u/s 132(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 had been carried out at the residential as well as office premises of Om
Agarwal Group of cases on 16.01.2019 by the Assistant Director of Income Tax (Investigation), Unit Kota. Therefore, a letter dated
29.01.2019 was written to the ADIT (Inv.), Kota requesting him to provide the copies of seized documents seized from the premises of Shri Ram
Kripal Sisodia and Shri Ram Singh Meena's statement recorded u/s 131
of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The ADIT(Inv.), Kota provided coples of the documents seized from the premises of Shri Ram Kripal Sisodia and copy of Shri Ram Singh Meena's statement vide his office letter no. 291 dated
29.01.2019 received in this office on 30.01.2019. This material was thoroughly examined. On examination of these seized documents, it was gathered that following documents pertained to Shri Ram Singh Meena but found and seized from the possession of Shri Ram Kripal Sisodia during search:

(1) Details of the lands located at Village - Kukas and Khora Meena, Teisil
Amer, District Jaipur transferred to Shri Ram Singh Meena and Shriram
Om Group by Shri Ram Kripal Sisodia in pursuance of MOU executed by him with Shree Ram Om Group (seized as page no. 5 and 10 of Exhibit -
2, Annexure AS from the residence of Shri R. K. Sisodia). These pages contain the khasra wise details of the properties transferred to Shri Ram
Singh Meena and Shree Ram Om Group.

(ii) Summary of accounts containing details of investment made by Shri
Ram Kripal Sisodia and S.R.O.G. (Shree Ram Om Group) in respect of immovable properties situated at Village Kukas and Khora Meena, Tehsil
Amer, District Jalpur but purchased in the names of Shri Ramdhan
Meena, Shri Ram Singh Meena and Shri Ramjilal Meena (seized as page no. 12, Exhibit 2, Annexure AS from the residence of Shri R. K. Sisodia).

(iii) The details of properties purchased by Shri Ram Kripal Sisodia in the names of Shri Ramdhan Meena and Shri Ramjilal Meena and the land transferred in the name of Shri Ram Singh Meena in pursuance of MOU
(selzed as page no. 25-27, Exhibit 2, Annexure AS from the residence of Shri R. K. Sisodia).
(iv) Copy of याददात प dated 20.07.2013 executed between Shri Ram
Kripal Sisodia, Shri Om Agarwal (i.e. Shri Om Prakash Gupta), Shri 16
Madan Agarwal, Shri Ashish Agarwal and Shri Dharmendra Agarwal in which it had been written that from date of writing this letter, shareholding of Shri Ram Kripal Sisodia and Shree Ram Om Group (SROG) would be 50:50. This letter was written for development and further sale of lands purchased in the name of Shri Ramjilal Meena, in the name of Shri Ram
Dhan Meena and Shri Ram Singh Meena (seized as page nos. 7-9 of Exhibit-4, Annexure AS from the residence of Shri R. K. Sisodia].

(v) The details of properties purchased in the name of Shri Ram Singh
Meena from Shri Ram Dhan Meena, Shri Ramjilal Meena [Benamidars of Shri Ram Kripal Sisodia] and directly from the sellers (seized as page nos. 41 and 42 of Exhibit-8, Annexure AS from the residence of Shri R.K.
Sisodia). The seized page no. 43 of this exhibit from the residential premises of Shri R. K. Sisodia contained the summary of staternent of expenditure incurred for procurement of (57+4)= 61 Bigha land. This entire land purchased in the name of Shri Ramdhan Meena and Shri
Ramjilal Meena which was further transferred in the name of Shri Ram
Singh Meene or purchased directly from the sellers in the name of Shri
Ram Singh Meena through Shri Rara Kripal Sisodia in pursuance of the MOU.

(vi) Page nos. 62-72 of Exhibit 9 of Annexure AS seized from the residence of Shri R. K. Sisodia contained the details of lands as under:

Ram Singh Meena

[these details were related to MOU executed between Shri Ram Kripal
Sisodia and SROG. Page no. 25 of this Exhibit contained the details of the lands purchased in the name of various benamidars such as Shri Ram
Singh Meena, Shri Ramdhan Meena and Ramjilal Meena.]

(vii) The details of the lands transferred to Shri Ram Singh Meena, Om
……………………
8. Further, during the course of search proceedings at the business premises of M/s Om Shree Ram Infrareal Private Limited (located at 409-
413, 4th Floor, Crops Arcade K-12, Malviya Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur,
Rajasthan), following incriminating documents pertaining to Shri Ram
Singh Meena were found and seized

: (1) Cash deposit slips and cheque deposit slips related to the Kotak
Mahindra Bank account held in the name of Shri Ram Singh Meerna.

(i) Photocopies of the cheques issued to Shri Ramjilat Meena and other sellers of the lands from the bank account opened and operated in the name of Shri Ram Singh Meena in Kotak Mahindra Bank.

(iii) Coples of RTGS application forms submitted to the Kotak Mahindra
Bank for payments from the bank account opened and operated In the name of Shri Ram Singh Meena.

(iv) Copy of fee deposit slip related to the payments made to the JDA for tand use conversion in the name of Shri Ram Singh Meena.

(v) Copies of applications submitted to the bank in in the name of Shri
Ram Singh Meena for cancellation of DD, making of DD, revoke cheque from stop payment, blank revoke cheque from stop payment and letter for confirmation of signature mismatch related to bank account opened and operated in the name of Shri Ram Singh Meena in Kotak Mahindra Bank.

(vi) Copies of application forms for funds transfer under RTGS/NEFT related to the bank account opened and operated in the name of Shri
Ram Singh Meena in Kotak Mahindra Bank, Sardar Patel Marg, Jaipur.

(vii) Original Cheque book counterfoil (containing details of date, cheque no., cheque recipient name/issued to and amount of cheque) of the bank account opened and operated in the name of Shri Ram Singh Meena in Kotak Mahindra Bank, Sardar Patel Marg, Jaipur.
It is pertinent to mention here that 409-413, 4th Floor, Crops Arcade K-12,
Malviya Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur is the office of the group of Shri Om
Prakash Gupta. The seizure of such vital documents related to Shri Ram
Singh Meena from this office made it clear that this bank account in Shri
Ram Singh Meena's name was opened and operated by Shri Om Prakash
Gupta oniy and used by him only for his own benefits (i.e. purchasing of lands in Sthiri Ram Singh Meena's name).
Shri Ram Singh Meena's statement u/s 131 of the Income-tax Act, 1961
was recorded on oath at the camp office held at Panchayat Bhawan,
Mainpura, Tehsil & District Swai Madhopur (Rajasthan). Copy of this statement was received from the ADIT(Inv.), Unit Kota. In his statement,
Shri Ran Singh Meena categorically admitted that:

a) He was obliged by Shri Om Agarwal (Le. Shri Om Prakash Gupta) as Shri Om Agarwal used to help him as and when required by him and his family.

b) He had not purchased any lands located in Jaipur but the lands were purchased by Shri Om Agarwal (i.e. Shri Om Prakash Gupta) and he had put his signatures on the sale deeds on the instruction of Shri Om
Agarwal, owner of Om Transport Company.

c) He was not aware of the lands purchased in his name and the locations of the lands purchased in his name by Shri Om Agarwal.

d) He was not aware of the consideration paid for purchasing any lands located in Jaipur as he had only put his signatures on the sale deeds.

e) He had put his signatures on various papers and cheques but he was not aware of the bank name on which these cheques were drawn. He was also not aware of the amount mentioned in these cheques. f) He had also put his signatures many times on blanks cheques.

g) He had not seen the lands purchased in his name.

h) He had not taken any loan for purchasing any lands.

i) He did not maintain any books of accounts.

j) He had not seen the original papers of the lands purchased in his name and Shri Om Agarwal only could tell about possession of these documents/sale deeds.

k) He did not know the names of the villages in which these lands were located. He was only aware that these lands were located at Jaipur -Delhi road.

l) He was not aware that these lands were located at Village - Kukas and Khorameena.
………………..
t) He was not aware of any withdrawals made in the bank account hesa in bils name in Kotak Mahindra Bank.

u) He was not aware of the possession of barik pass book and cheque book of the bank account held in his name in Kotak Mahindra Bank and stated that only Shri Om Agarwal could tell about this.

v) He used to visit Jaipur by train with regards to these lands as per the telephonic Instructions received from Shri Om Agarwal. Some person of Shri Om Agarwal used to pick him from Railway Station and used to take him at the concerned Sub-