TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (11) TMI 238
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....HD/2016 have been filed against the order dated 24.11.2015. 2. The facts and legal issues in all appeals are similar thus by single order these are being disposed with the consent of the parties. 3. In O.C. No. 503/2015 dated 24.11.2015, the respondent no. 1 has made a search of cash of Rs. 6.47 Lacs approximately from house C-83, Shyam Nagar, Jaipur owned by the father of the appellants. 4. It is on record and also an admitted fact that the house at C-83, Shyam Nagar, Jaipur was owned by the father of the appellant. It is also an admitted fact that the appellant used to reside with his father, mother, brother and his family as a joint family in this house. 4.1 The panchnama dated 22.05.2015 relating to recovery of cash amounting to Rs.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gar was given by the Joint Director, PMLA, AZU, Ahmedabad. It is stated by the appellant that integrity of the officer was doubtful as averted by his Director. When the said premises was found locked, the decision to break open the lock of the doors, safe, almirah etc. was taken by the Assistant Director, Jaipur Zonal Unit. Nothing is on record that any such permission in writing was ever granted by any officer of the rank of Deputy Director and above. This being against the basic spirit of Section 17(1) (iv) (b) of the Act. 8. Two separate impugned orders have been passed confirming the attachment. The main facts are taken from appeal no. FPA-PMLA- 1266/AHD/2016. 9. Counsel for the appellant has handed over the dates of events and synops....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and Chirag Parikh for commission of offence relating to obtaining SIM under forged IDs and signatures, being offence under Section 120 B r/w 418, 419, 420, 467 & 471 of IPC. Accordingly a case No ECIR/03/AZO/2015 dated 26.03.2015 was registered by the office of the Enforcement Directorate, Zonal Unit, Ahmedabad against these four persons. 10.1 During the course of investigation by Enforcement Directorate, it was allegedly noticed that these persons in the name and style of MARUTI AHMEDABAD had settled proceeds in betting of Cricket to the tune of Rs. 2469,99,08,750.00 from 01.12.2014 till 16.03.2015 by using these forged SIM cards. It was thereafter alleged that these persons had settled proceeds in cricket matches betting to the tune of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to release the seized Assorted Jewelery and utensils valued at Rs. 85,08,920.00 and not to arbitrarily confirm the Provisional Attachment Order so issued in this regard. 11. The Counsel of the appellant has referred the grounds against confirmation of the impugned provisional attachment order along with evidence in its support, at the time of personal hearing. 12. It is stated that the Adjudicating Authority without taking on record any of the submissions; without any reasons, so recorded in writing; without refuting any of the contentions so made by the appellant; resorted to confirmation of the Provisional Attachment Orders. 13. Aggrieved by the impugned order of the Adjudicating Authority (PMLA) the above mentioned appeals have been ....