Tribunal upholds ₹5.3 crore attachment linked to Satyendar Jain

New Delhi: An appellate tribunal that deals with attachment of assets in black money caseshas upheld a 2019 attachment of ₹5

New Delhi: An appellate tribunal that deals with attachment of assets in black money caseshas upheld a 2019 attachment of ₹5.3 crore as “benami property” linked to Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Satyendar Jain and his two alleged associates who had deposited the money as tax under the Income Tax Declaration Scheme, 2016.

It was alleged that the tax deposits were held for the benefit of Satyendar Jain (Photo for representation)

In an order passed last week, a bench of members Balesh Kumar and Rajesh Malhotra at the appellate tribunal for forfeited property (ATFP) in New Delhi dismissed the appeals by the three people and ruled that Vaibhav and Ankush Jain were “benamidars” (asset purchased in their names) while Satyendar Jain was the “beneficial owner” of the attached amount. HT has seen the copy of the order.

The matter relates to two amounts — ₹3.71 crore and ₹1.58 crore — deposited by Vaibhav and Ankush, respectively, under the IDS 2016 scheme. The declarations were linked to undisclosed income associated with investments in share capital and share premium of three companies - Akinchan Developers Pvt Ltd, Indo Metal Impex Pvt Ltd and Prayas Infosolutions Pvt Ltd.

The order was challenged by all three before the ATFP.

The tax demand for Satyendar Jain stood at ₹6.92 crore and ₹3.88 crore for the assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13. However, he argued that the tax already deposited by Vaibhav and Ankush should be adjusted against his outstanding liability.

“On examining the transaction, it is clear that through an arrangement, the ‘undisclosed income’ as claimed by Vaibhav Jain and Ankush was declared under the IDS 2016. The declaration, however, was found illegal and void on June 9, 2017. While the declarants challenged the order before the Delhi high court, Satyendar Jain issued the two letters on June 27, 2018, asking the (Income Tax) department to partly set off the Income Tax demands made on him by adjusting the amounts deposited by Vaibhav Jain and Ankush Jain,” the tribunal noted in its order.

“Thus, the arrangement could have resulted in the benefit to Satyendar Jain. The arrangement also implies and reflects that the consideration was provided by Satyendar Jain, as is obvious from his request made in his letters that the deposits paid under IDS 2016 should be adjusted against his tax liability. We therefore conclude that the property attached of amount of ₹5,30,10,000 is ‘benami property’ and the appellants Vaibhav Jain and Ankush Jain are the ‘Benamidars’ and Satyendar Jain is the ‘beneficial owner’ qua the said property,” the tribunal ruled.

HT reached out to the legal team of Satyendar Jain through phone and text but received no response.