Income Tax authorities have provisionally attached 4.4 acres of agricultural land in Gajularamaram after an attachment order held that five men with modest disclosed incomes were prima facie acting as benamidars in a land deal valued at Rs 23.4 crore, allegedly funded by an unknown or fictitious beneficial owner.
The order said the same land was later lined up for sale to Koneru Lakshmaiah Education Foundation for Rs 30 crore and that Rs 17 crore had already been received as advance, prompting the department to step in to prevent any further transfer of the property.
Cash deal under scrutiny
The attachment order said the land was purchased through a sale deed on Dec 28, 2023, in the names of Chilukuri Venkata Rami Reddy, K Narsimha Raj Goud, S Munagala Sridhar, Dyavanapally Shylender and Maloth Venkatesh Naik. The stated consideration in the document was Rs 23,46,75,870 (Rs 23.46 crore), paid entirely in cash, with possession also recorded as having been handed over.
According to the I-T attachment order, scrutiny of the income tax profiles of the five purchasers showed annual incomes that were insignificant when compared to the transaction value. On that basis, the initiating officer concluded that the named purchasers lacked the creditworthiness to fund a cash purchase of that scale.
The order further recorded that the 5 men had already entered into an agreement to sell the same land to Koneru Lakshmaiah Education Foundation, also referred to in the proceedings as KLU or KLEF, for Rs 30 crore and had received Rs 17 crore as part consideration. The department treated this as a significant circumstance while examining the source of funds used in the original purchase.
Vakiti Sudhakar, identified in the order as the original owner and vendor of the land, was stated to have sold the property to the five purchasers. The order said he was summoned but did not appear before the authorities to give a statement.
Order cites conflicting claims over payment and possession
A central finding in the attachment order was the contradiction between the recitals in the registered sale deed and the later stand taken by the five purchasers. While the sale deed acknowledged full cash payment of Rs 23.4 crore and delivery of possession, the purchasers later contended that they had paid only Rs 50 lakh to the vendor and had not received possession because the land was already under dispute.
They told authorities that the recital in the sale deed about full payment was included only to facilitate registration, even though the entire amount had not actually been paid. They also said they proceeded with registration in their names only to safeguard the Rs 50 lakh already paid by them after disputes surrounding the land surfaced.
The 5 purchasers further stated that their plan was to sell the property to Koneru Lakshmaiah Education Foundation for Rs 30 crore, use that money to pay the balance sale consideration to the original owner and retain the difference as profit. They maintained that the part payment made by them came from legitimate and accounted sources reflected in their income tax returns. They also said that, had the property not been under dispute, they would have arranged the remaining funds through borrowings or financial assistance from banks and NBFCs.
They submitted that Vakiti Sudhakar was not in a position to refund the initial Rs 50 lakh and had issued legal notices seeking cancellation of the transaction because he could not complete the sale.
Provisional attachment to stop further transfer
The initiating officer, however, did not accept the explanation and held that the transaction fell within Section 2(9)(D) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988. The order said that if the consideration mentioned in the sale deed was treated as paid, it was clearly not paid by the named purchasers, given their financial profile, and therefore must have come from a non-traceable or fictitious beneficial owner.
On that reasoning, the five named purchasers were treated as prima facie benamidars, while the actual source of funds was attributed to an unknown beneficial owner whose identity, the order said, was not established.
To prevent the land from being sold, transferred or otherwise alienated during the proceedings, the Initiating Officer passed a provisional attachment order on March 25, 2026.
Source from: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/hyderabad/income-tax-dept-foils-land-deal-worth-23cr-by-suspected-benamis-in-hyderabad/articleshowprint/130218327.cms
