Attachment Order By ED Was to Be Quashed Where Likelihood of Concealment or Transfer of Properties Couldn’t Be Proved
- Blog|News|FEMA & Banking|
- 2 Min Read
- By Taxmann
- |
- Last Updated on 2 November, 2023
Case Details: Smt. Suma Sooraj v. Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement - [2023] 155 taxmann.com 298 (SAFEMA-New Delhi)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
-
- Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari, Chairman & V. Anandarajan, Member
- R.K. Rawal, Adv. for the Appellant.
- Aditya Singla & Sahil Sharma, Advs. for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
In the instant case, during the investigation, it was alleged that the appellant was having assets of Rs. 11 crore disproportionate of his known sources of income during the check period from 1-1-2004 to 19-11-2014. Thus, orders of provisional attachment of properties of the appellant were passed for an offence under section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The said order was confirmed by the respondent-Adjudicating Authority. The appellant submitted that offence under section 1988 Act was not a scheduled offence in the PMLA, 2002 but was added by notification issued in the year 2009 followed by a further amendment in the year 2013 and since, the check period to determine the alleged offence relates to period when offence under 1988 Act was not a scheduled offence, the respondent could not have attached property.
It was noted that the respondents had failed to show any likelihood of concealment or transfer of properties so as to frustrate the proceeding of confiscation. Further, the property in question was already attached by the Special Court and, thus, there was no likelihood of transfer or concealment of the property
The Appellate Tribunal observed that the relevant date to find out the scheduled offence is the date when one projects tainted property to be untainted or involve oneself in money laundering and not the date of actual commission of predicate offence.
Appellate Tribunal Held
The Appellate Tribunal held that an order of attachment requires reasons to believe in writing and it should be on the basis of material in possession that a person is in possession of proceeds of crime and such proceeds of crime are likely to be concealed, transferred or dealt with in any manner, which may frustrate confiscation of property.
Therefore, the order of attachment passed by the respondent was without application of mind and was to be set aside.
Disclaimer: The content/information published on the website is only for general information of the user and shall not be construed as legal advice. While the Taxmann has exercised reasonable efforts to ensure the veracity of information/content published, Taxmann shall be under no liability in any manner whatsoever for incorrect information, if any.
Taxmann Publications has a dedicated in-house Research & Editorial Team. This team consists of a team of Chartered Accountants, Company Secretaries, and Lawyers. This team works under the guidance and supervision of editor-in-chief Mr Rakesh Bhargava.
The Research and Editorial Team is responsible for developing reliable and accurate content for the readers. The team follows the six-sigma approach to achieve the benchmark of zero error in its publications and research platforms. The team ensures that the following publication guidelines are thoroughly followed while developing the content:
- The statutory material is obtained only from the authorized and reliable sources
- All the latest developments in the judicial and legislative fields are covered
- Prepare the analytical write-ups on current, controversial, and important issues to help the readers to understand the concept and its implications
- Every content published by Taxmann is complete, accurate and lucid
- All evidence-based statements are supported with proper reference to Section, Circular No., Notification No. or citations
- The golden rules of grammar, style and consistency are thoroughly followed
- Font and size that’s easy to read and remain consistent across all imprint and digital publications are applied