TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (7) TMI 341
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed 01.06.2017 whereby Adjudicating Authority had confirmed the Provisional Attachment Order. The appellant was defendant no. 6 before the Adjudicating Authority. We are only concerned with the case of appellant herein who has challenged Impugned Order as well as Provisional Attachment Order in relation to property no. 2 described in the schedule of Property of the impugned order. 3. We are not concerned with the case of other defendant no. 1 to 5 before the adjudicating authority. If they would challenge the orders, their case would be decided as per its own merit. 4. The facts of the case are that under the reasonable belief that certain properties derived out of "Proceeds of Crime, as defined under section 2 (1)(u) of the Act, are r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oan was sanctioned in the month of September, 2010. It is the case of the respondent that the sanction of the loan amount was on the basis of criminal conspiracy and cheating which are scheduled offences under the PMLA Act, 2002 and the property in question was acquired out of the proceeds of crime obtained by way of said bank loan. However, the admitted facts are the contrary. 8. On the basis of the recommendation of Odisha Computer Application Centre (OCAC) dated 16.02.2009, IDCO Plot No. E/44/2 measuring an area of Acre 4 at Infocity IT SEZ was allotted in favour of M/s Ignis technologies Solution Pvt. Ltd. on lease for establishment of a Software Development Centre vide allotment letter No. 8728 dated 18.05.09 of IDCO. 9. The cost....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hedule of the property properties i.e. an area of land admeasuring 4 Acres in IDOC"s Info City would not have in any manner connected with the proceeds of crime" which could attract the provisions of the PMLA Act, 2002. 15. It is also undisputed position that the entire payment for the land to be given on lease by the appellant (IDCO) to defendant no. 1 i.e. M/s Ignis Technology Solutions Pvt. Ltd. had been paid in the year 2009. The agreed consideration of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Only) was satisfied by December 24, 2009. 16. M/s Ignis Technology Solutions Pvt. Ltd. had filed the application for sanction of loan only on 08.04.2010 i.e. much after the payment of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Only) The Transfer of titl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t even prima facie satisfied. Even otherwise also there is no satisfaction recorded that the proceeds of crime are likely to be concealed, transferred or dealt with in any manner which may result in frustrating any proceedings relating to confiscation. In the facts of the present case the property in question was granted on lease by IDCO, a 100% public sector undertaking of the State of Odisha to Defendant No. 1 and had reverted back to the corporation on account of non compliance by M/s Ignis Technology Solutions Pvt. Ltd. of the conditions of allotment. 20. The adjudicating authority did not appreciate that even in the rejoinder filed to the reply of defendant No. 1. There was no denial of the fact that the present property mentioned a....