Concessional penalty for search-disclosed unreconciled jewellery applies where substantive disclosure conditions are met despite omission from origina...
The Appellate Tribunal addressed two key issues: 1) The duration for which property can be retained u/s 20(3) of PMLA, 2002, and 2) The constitution of the Adjudicating Authority. The Tribunal found that the Adjudicating Authority exceeded the 180-day limit for retaining seized property due to Covid-19 related extensions. Citing precedents, the Tribunal ruled that the excluded period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 should not count towards the 180-day limit. Additionally, it upheld the competence of a single-member bench as the Adjudicating Authority based on judgments from Calcutta High Court and Telangana High Court. The appeal was dismissed for lacking merit.
The Appellate Tribunal addressed two key issues: 1) The duration for which property can be retained u/s 20(3) of PMLA, 2002, and 2) The constitution of the Adjudicating Authority. The Tribunal found that the Adjudicating Authority exceeded the 180-day limit for retaining seized property due to Covid-19 related extensions. Citing precedents, the Tribunal ruled that the excluded period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 should not count towards the 180-day limit. Additionally, it upheld the competence of a single-member bench as the Adjudicating Authority based on judgments from Calcutta High Court and Telangana High Court. The appeal was dismissed for lacking merit.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4827 
Join Channel 
