The AT dismissed the appeal and upheld the provisional...
Provisional attachment upheld; no independent probe required into predicate offence; Section 5(1) requirements satisfied, temporal acquisition not a safeguard
📋
Contents
Cases Cited
Referred In
Notifications
Circulars
Forms
Manuals
Acts
Rules & Regulations
Case Laws New
Ref Provisions New
Plus +
Source NTF
Summary
Similar
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
The AT dismissed the appeal and upheld the provisional attachment by the ED. The Tribunal held that the ED need not conduct an independent probe into the predicate offence and may only point out manifest lacunae in the police/CBI investigation; it cannot supplant findings on the scheduled offence. Properties acquired prior to enactment/amendment can be tainted if proceeds were subsequently projected as untainted and used after the relevant date; therefore temporal acquisition alone did not preclude attachment. The AT found non-compliance pleas unestablished, concluded requirements of Section 5(1) (including the second proviso and clauses (a) and (b)) were satisfied, and rejected discharge-based release arguments. Attachment sustained.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.