The AT dismissed the appeal challenging the provisional attachment order under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. It held that the confirmation of the order beyond 180 days did not result in its lapse, considering the Covid-19 period and the Supreme Court's extension. The AT also rejected the ground that the attached property being joint property without notice to the joint holder invalidated the order, as there was no material to show it was joint property, and the appeal was not preferred by any joint holder. Thus, no interference was warranted in the impugned order.
The AT dismissed the appeal challenging the provisional attachment order under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. It held that the confirmation of the order beyond 180 days did not result in its lapse, considering the Covid-19 period and the Supreme Court's extension. The AT also rejected the ground that the attached property being joint property without notice to the joint holder invalidated the order, as there was no material to show it was joint property, and the appeal was not preferred by any joint holder. Thus, no interference was warranted in the impugned order.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
