AT examined the challenge to the Impugned Order on the ground that it was passed beyond 180 days from the Provisional Attachment Order. Relying on prior AT precedent and the exclusion of Covid-19 period as per the Apex Court's suo motu directions, AT held that the limitation stood validly extended and the Impugned Order was not time-barred. AT further held that the appellant's statement under Section 50(2) of the 2002 Act is admissible and, on scrutiny, showed that certain bank credits and investments were unexplained as legitimate earnings. Consequently, provisional attachment of the identified amounts as proceeds of crime was upheld, to remain subject to the final outcome of the pending trial, and the appeal was disposed of.
AT examined the challenge to the Impugned Order on the ground that it was passed beyond 180 days from the Provisional Attachment Order. Relying on prior AT precedent and the exclusion of Covid-19 period as per the Apex Court's suo motu directions, AT held that the limitation stood validly extended and the Impugned Order was not time-barred. AT further held that the appellant's statement under Section 50(2) of the 2002 Act is admissible and, on scrutiny, showed that certain bank credits and investments were unexplained as legitimate earnings. Consequently, provisional attachment of the identified amounts as proceeds of crime was upheld, to remain subject to the final outcome of the pending trial, and the appeal was disposed of.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4824 
Join Channel 
