Provisional attachment under PMLA upheld where claimed income and asset sources were not properly documented or explained.

In proceedings concerning confirmation of provisional attachment under PMLA, the Tribunal held that the appellants bore the burden under Section 24 to disprove the findings supporting attachment. Their reliance on alternative income figures, rental income, agricultural income, loan receipts, insurance proceeds, and salary data failed because they did not produce satisfactory documentary proof for the relevant years and transactions. The Tribunal found no supporting rent deeds, complete bank records, proof of agricultural receipts, or credible evidence of the alleged cash sources and family contributions. Alleged valuation inconsistencies between the FIR and the attachment order were not shown to affect the attachment, and unexplained cash deposits and acquisitions remained disproportionate to known lawful income. The challenge to the confirmed provisional attachment failed and the attachment was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the confirmation of provisional attachment was liable to be interfered with on the grounds of alleged miscalculation of income and expenditure, inconsistency in valuation of properties, and failure to explain the source of funds used for acquisition of assets and cash deposits.

Analysis: The burden to disprove the findings supporting attachment rested on the appellants under Section 24 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The appellants relied on alternative income figures, rental income, agricultural income, loan receipts, insurance proceeds, and salary data, but did not produce satisfactory documentary proof for the material years and transactions. The Tribunal found that the claimed income was not substantiated by rent deeds, complete bank records, proof of agricultural receipts, or evidence of the alleged sources of cash and family contributions. The alleged discrepancies in valuation between the FIR and the provisional attachment order were not shown to undermine the attachment, and even if some variation existed, the attachment assessment would still sustain scrutiny. The unexplained cash deposits and absence of a credible source for several acquisitions supported the conclusion that the assets were disproportionate to known lawful income.

Conclusion: The challenge to the confirmed provisional attachment failed, and the attachment was upheld.

---