TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Salary, booking refund, and advance forfeiture payments challenged as 'proceeds of crime'; provisional attachment set aside on evidence</h1> Whether the appellant was a recipient of 'proceeds of crime' so as to justify provisional attachment was the dominant issue. The Tribunal held that salary ... Money Laundering - Provisional Attachment Order - proceeds of crime - appellant is recipient of the proceeds of crime or not - justification to provisionally attach her property or appellant could disclose the source for purchase of the property - HELD THAT:- The Appellate Tribunal is not agreed with the view taken by the respondents and accordingly receipt of the salary by the appellant could not have been taken towards the proceeds of crime. It is more so when the appellant had even produced the appointment order issued by M/s SRS Finance Ltd. and has not been disputed by the witnesses other than one named in the earlier para to show that he had not seen appellant’s working in SRS Group of Companies. As against oral evidence, we cannot ignore the documentary evidence. Thus, the first limb towards proceeds of crime in the hands of the appellant cannot be accepted. The fake statement of facts regarding receipt of the huge amount by the appellant from M/s SRS Real Infrastructure Ltd. cannot be accepted having not visualized after taking into consideration the documents available on record. It would be relevant to add that the reference of the loan amount and payment by banking transaction was given but the relevant document in the shape of bank statement were not produced and it was later on produced along with the application on the direction of the Tribunal. It is sufficient to fortify the claim of the appellant that she had not received the proceeds of crime, rather return of money was for cancellation of the booking of the Villa. The third allegation regarding receipt of the amount is from M/s Shivnash Sale Agencies Pvt. Ltd. from which Company the appellant has received Rs. 25 lakhs each on two different dates - The appellant has placed on record copy of the income-tax return to indicate the payment of tax on the forfeiture of the advance amount of Rs. 50 lakhs. The Agreement to Sell and the income-tax return was acknowledged but has been ignored by the respondents while holding proceeds of crime in the hands of the appellant. In the light of the discussion made above, we do not find that the amount indicated by the respondents to be proceeds of crime received by the appellant is in ignorance of the documentary evidence available on record. If one has disclosed the source and is not recipient of the proceeds of crime, Provisional Attachment Order may not sustain. The impugned order cannot be confirmed - The Provisional Attachment Order and its confirmation by the Adjudicating Authority vide the impugned order - appeal allowed. Issues: (i) Whether the provisional attachment of the appellant's immovable property as proceeds of crime and its subsequent confirmation could be sustained when documentary evidence discloses lawful sources for the receipts relied upon by the Authority.Analysis: The question requires examination of whether receipts relied upon by the respondents constituted proceeds of crime or whether the appellant had produced admissible documentary evidence demonstrating lawful origin of those receipts. The material considered includes appointment orders, income-tax returns and assessment records showing salary credited and taxed under the relevant assessment provisions, bank statements and loan documents showing banking transactions and loan disbursement and refund entries for amounts paid and later refunded by a real estate company, and an Agreement to Sell together with tax return entries reflecting forfeiture and reporting of advance as income. The analysis distinguishes between contested oral assertions and contemporaneous documentary records; where reliable documentary records establish salary receipts subject to TDS and assessment, loan disbursement and refund by banking channels, and a contractual sale advance accepted and subsequently forfeited and declared in income returns, those records negate the characterization of such receipts as proceeds of crime for purposes of provisional attachment. The analysis also treats layering allegations in light of the timing and nature of transactions and the presence of banking and tax documentation that explain flows consistently with lawful transactions.Conclusion: The provisional attachment of the appellant's property and its confirmation could not be sustained on the record; the documentary evidence dispelled the inference that the impugned receipts were proceeds of crime and required setting aside of the provisional attachment and its confirmation.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
