Penalty under Section 112 fails where knowledge, admissible statements, and incriminating evidence are not proved against the Customs Broker's directo...
The Appellate Tribunal examined the issue of retention of seized documents/properties u/s 17(4) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) in a case involving the misuse of loans. The case arose from investigations into investments made from provident funds maintained by UPPCL Trusts as fixed deposits with DHFL, contrary to standing instructions. The Directorate, based on statements from DHFL's Rajendra Mirashie, examined loans disbursed by DHFL and identified the appellant companies of the SGS Group as beneficiaries of loans suspected to have been siphoned off. The seizure of Rs. 33,00,000/- was made from the residential premises of the Gulati family on 13.08.2021. The source of the seized amount was explained as withdrawals from personal accounts for medical exigencies, supported by bank certificates. The Tribunal observed that the rejection of the explanation on the grounds of online banking cannot be accepted, as cash transactions during emergencies cannot be ruled out. The respondent failed to demonstrate the link between the seized amount and the suspected proceeds of crime. Consequently, the Impugned Order was set aside concerning the appellant, and the appeal was allowed.
The Appellate Tribunal examined the issue of retention of seized documents/properties u/s 17(4) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) in a case involving the misuse of loans. The case arose from investigations into investments made from provident funds maintained by UPPCL Trusts as fixed deposits with DHFL, contrary to standing instructions. The Directorate, based on statements from DHFL's Rajendra Mirashie, examined loans disbursed by DHFL and identified the appellant companies of the SGS Group as beneficiaries of loans suspected to have been siphoned off. The seizure of Rs. 33,00,000/- was made from the residential premises of the Gulati family on 13.08.2021. The source of the seized amount was explained as withdrawals from personal accounts for medical exigencies, supported by bank certificates. The Tribunal observed that the rejection of the explanation on the grounds of online banking cannot be accepted, as cash transactions during emergencies cannot be ruled out. The respondent failed to demonstrate the link between the seized amount and the suspected proceeds of crime. Consequently, the Impugned Order was set aside concerning the appellant, and the appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4827 
Join Channel 
