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>Provisional attachment of listed property (serial no. 24) under PMLA - omission found; remanded for specific order</h1> Dominant issue: validity and scope of a provisional attachment order under the PMLA, specifically whether a listed property was included in the ... Money Laundering - provisional attachment order - proceeds of crime - obtaining the LOUs amounting to Rs. 3032.17 Crores from PNB, Mumbai, fraudulently by cheating the bank in connivance of the bank personnel without giving any cash margin on the basis of the material placed before him procured during the course of investigation - reasonable belief - HELD THAT:- There is nothing on record that any of the attached properties vide said PAO was directed to be released by the Adjudicating Authority. It is quite clear that inadvertently the property at serial no. 24 is not mentioned in para 17 & 18 of the impugned order which was owned by present Appellant Rohan Choksi. Accordingly, the present case needs to be remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for passing the specific order qua the property at serial no. 24. The case is remanded back to the Adjudicating Authority for passing the specific order qua the property at serial no. 24 - Appeal disposed off by way of remand. Issues: (i) Whether the Adjudicating Authority's confirmation of the Provisional Attachment Order (PAO) requires correction/remand insofar as it misidentifies ownership and omits a specific order in respect of the property at serial no. 24 (Flat No.91, Gokul Building) held by the appellant, and whether the matter should be remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for a specific decision on that property.Analysis: The Appellate Tribunal examined the impugned AA order confirming PAO No.03/2018 and found material ambiguities concerning the identification and treatment of two adjacent properties: serial no. 23 (flat in the name of M/s Rohan Mercantile Pvt. Ltd.) and serial no. 24 (flat transferred to the appellant on 01.11.2013). The Tribunal analysed the record and the AA's order paragraphs showing that the confirmation and conclusions referred expressly to serial no. 23 as standing in the name of D-12 in parts of the AA order, while serial no. 24 the property owned by the appellant was omitted from those operative findings despite being listed in the PAO. The Tribunal considered submissions on ownership, timing of acquisition relative to the predicate offences, the absence of direct money trail claimed by the appellant, and the ED's contentions regarding shareholdings and potential connections to proceeds. The Tribunal concluded that, although there was substantial material relied upon by ED concerning the broader fraud, the specific omission and inconsistent references in the AA's order created a jurisdictional/clerical ambiguity requiring the AA to pass a specific, reasoned order as to serial no. 24 rather than leaving the issue unresolved on appeal.Conclusion: The appeal is partly allowed to the extent that the matter is remanded to the Adjudicating Authority with a direction to pass a specific, reasoned order regarding the property at serial no. 24 (Flat No.91, Gokul Building) and to resolve the identified ambiguity in the confirmation of the PAO. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
