AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (6) TMI 484
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was confirmed by the Impugned Order dated 26.07.2016. Shri Shankar Kollur was the accused in the FIR No. 20/2009dated 22.09.2009. The other appellants are the family members of Shri Shankar Kollur. 2. The complainant has submitted the facts leading to the Provisional Attachment of the said immovable properties as detailed below : (i) Karnataka Lokayukta, Raichur has registered FIR in Crime No.20/2009 dated 22.09.2009 under Section 13(1) (e ) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 against Shri Shankar Kollur, then working as Deputy Revenue Officer, Gulbarga City Corporation and thereafter conducted searches on 23.09.2009 on the residential premises of Shri Shankar Kollur at Gulbarga and other related premises in Gulbarga. During the search conducted on the residence of Shri Shankar Kollur at Gulbarga, the Lokayuktya Authorities recovered incriminating documents pertaining to the properties registered in the names of (i) Shri Shankar Kollur (2) Smt. Parvati KollurW/o Shri Shankar Kollur (3) Shri AvinashKollur S/o Shri Shankar Kollur (4) Shri Rakesh Kollur S/o Shri Shankar Kollur (5) Smt. Chandrakala W/o Shri AvinashKollur (6) Smt. Apeksha W/o Shri Rakesh Koll....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Gulbarga Smt. Parvathi, W/o Shankar Kollur 3697/56 Dt. 20.08.1992 14,994/- E Shop bearing No.G- 10A, measuring 175.5 Sq.Ft in the ground floor,G.K. Complex, Timmapuri Chowk, Bus Stand Road, Gulbarga Shri Rakesh, S/o Shri Shankar Kollur 574 Dt. 25.02.2001 1,65,932/- F Plot along with house constructed at Survey No.8,House No. 11- 1791/4A, Vidyanagar, Gulbarga Shri Avinash, S/o Shankar Kollur 749 Dt.19.04.2003 12,07,339/- G Agricultural land of 5 acres at Survey No.132 situated at Hadgil Village, Haruti Taluk, Gulbarga District Ashwajeet Education Society, Gulbarga 2634 Dt.19.06.2007 1,50,000/- TOTAL 36,24,077/- 4. The following pleas were taken by the appellants before the Adjudicating Authority, the details are as below:- i. a) The learned counsel did not consider rental income/agriculture income/business income from tailoring of the spouse Smt.Parvati Kollur declared in the returns of income filed to the IT department. b) The learned Authority did not consider the income from profession and business income of so....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Bank of Hyderabad : Rs. 2,00,000/- b) Loan from City Corporation, Gulbarga : Rs.1,25,000/- c) Salary Savings : Rs.3,68,987/- d) Contribution by spouse Smt.Parvati : Rs. 5,66,490/- Total : Rs.12,60,477/- I had cash balance of about Rs. 2,77,124/- as on 01.04.1997, salary drawn Rs. 66,686/- during 1997-98 and Rs. 71,425/- during 1998-99 and Rs. 2,00,000/- Housing Loan from State Bank of Hyderabad which sourced the construction cost of Rs. 3,68,987/-. The learned Authority has considered salary drawn of Rs. 66,686/- during 1997-98 and Rs. 71,425/- during 1998-99 but did not consider the brought forward savings of about Rs. 2,77,124/- out of salary income. iv. I had borrowed loan of Rs. 1,25,000/- from City Corporation Gulbargaduring 1999-2000.To substantiate the fact of borrowing, I am herewith enclosing copy of sanction letter and also it can be perused from receipt and payment account that department has deducted Rs. 12000/- from the salary every year towards loan till during the period 2000-01 to 2008-09. v. Tailoring / agriculture /rental income of Rs. 5,66,490/- contributed by my spouse towards house construction jointly with me. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....war etc. As on date, these lands are agriculture lands which have been cultivated. The agriculture income derived every year is as under: Year Rent (Rs.) 1992-93 10,360.00 1993-94 12,390.00 1994-95 14,310.00 1995-96 16,590.00 1996-97 18,540.00 1997-98 18,950.00 1998-99 22,310.00 1999-00 25,110.00 2000-01 28,530.00 2001-02 29,720.00 2002-03 21,598.00 2003-04 20,138.00 2004-05 22,749.00 2005-06 23,627.00 2006-07 26,187.00 2007-08 23,670.00 2008-09 30,150.00 TOTAL 3,64,929.00 As my spouse is assessed to income tax, my spouse has returned the above said agriculture income in the returns of income filed every year. 8) As on 01.04.1997,my spouse had brought forward savings in the form of cash of about Rs. 2,85,390/- and income of about Rs. 69,100/- during 1997-98 and Rs. 84,860/- during 1998-99. Further, my spouse received Rs. 1,25,000/- as gift from her mother Smt. Iravva towards house construction. 5. The Provisional Attachment Order dated 24.03.2016 has been confirmed by the Impugned Order dated 26.07.2016. The said Impugned Order was challen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t. On taking into consideration the principles rendered in the decision of the Hon'ble H.C. of M.P. in Mohanlal Arya Vs. State of M.P. and on taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances and also size of the family of the accused, the expenses incurred by the family by using food grains, cereals and vegetables grown in their lands, this Court is of the considered view that 60% of family expenditure fixed by the Investigating Officer would be appropriate family expenditure which would have been incurred by the accused during the check period. On calculation, the difference comes to Rs. 6,83,081/- which is liable to be reduced in the item of family expenditure." "61. On perusal of the records produced in this case makes it very clear that net salary of the accused to the tune of Rs. 16,39,987/- was not taken into consideration by the Investigating Officer. As per the statements submitted by the accused and also the documents produced in this case clearly indicates that net salary received by the accused was Rs. 19,38,283/-.When such is the case, the difference amount of Rs. 2,98,296/- is liable to be added to the income account of the accused." "62. A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2 Rs.5,00,000/- b) The difference valuation of the house constructed at Badepur standing in the name of accused Rs.6,90,991/- c) House bearing No. 11/1791/4A situated at Vidya Nagar acquired by the wife of the accused viz. Parvati and with the individual income of her son viz. Avinash Rs.9,50,000/- d) Shop No.G-10A situated at G.K. Complex purchased in the name of Rakesh by the wife of accused viz. Parvati out of her rental income and tailoring business Rs.5,00,000/- e) Sy. No.125 measuring 2 acres 30 guntas situated at Savalagi-B village which was purchased by the wife of accused viz. Parvati out of her rental income from one Bandeppa on 20.08.1992 Rs.2,50,000/- f) Fixed deposit of Rs. 8,00,000/- deposited in the name of Ashwajeet Educational Society being run by the son of accused viz. Avinash along with others Rs.8,01,450/- g) The valuation of vehicle bearing No.KA-32- 6996 purchased by Rakesh by raising loan from Indian Bank Rs.7,80,188/- h) Bajaj Pulsar Motorcycle purchased by the son of accused viz. Avinash out of his business income Rs.47,700/- i) The vehicle bearing No. KA-32-7888 purchased by the son of accused viz. Kirankuma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n 13(1) (e ) R/W section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The bail bond of the accused and that of his surety shall stand cancelled." 9. It is evident from the said judgement that by the ` Order dated 27.04.2017 passed by the Special Court, the charge sheet in the case of appellant struck down and set aside by the Special Court (Trial Court), the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority confirming the Provisional Attachment Order has no any validity/legal support in eyes of law and void ab initio. 10. This fact was brought to the notice of this Tribunal. Copy of the Judgement was also filed. It was argued that once the appellant was acquitted from the schedule offence and no appeal was filed, the attached properties are liable to be released. 11. It is argued on behalf of the appellants that one of the reason for quashing the PMLA complaint is that the amendment to the provisions of section 8(3)(b) of PMLA Act with effect from 15.02.2013 are as under:- Prior to 15.02.2013 "The following clause substituted by the Prevention of Money - laundering (Amendment) Act,2002 (2 of 2013), which came into effect from 15 February, 2013." ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....udgement (as informed by the parties), the appeal is liable to be allowed. The complaint under schedule offence was decided on merit after recording the evidence. The FIR was dated 3.8.2010 as well as charge sheet have been quashed by the Special Court. 17. It has also been seen from the Impugned Order that the reply/documents/materials and evidence filed by the appellant have not been considered nor the statement made by Shri Shankar Kollur, Smt. Parvati Shankar Kollur, Shri AvinashKollur and Shri Rakesh Kollur which would show the salary income / rental income /agriculture income /tailoring income/ business income/hiring of vehicles /income from civil work/acquisition of movable and immovable property and details of sources for acquisition /loans from bank and others/ salary and retirement benefits of Smt. IravvaMareppa mother of Parvati Kollur. 18. The Provisional Attachment Order has not discussed the source of funds available with the accused. It was merely assumed that the accused/appellant had not any savings despite of submitting the material and documents and also from his spouse, son Rakesh and Avinash. 19. Even in the impugned order, the plea raised by the appel....