TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (8) TMI 11
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....alue of INR 1,30,23,799 (hereinafter referred to as 'Immovable Properties'), 2. The Appellant was not arrayed as an accused in the FIR nor there were any allegations against the Appellant in the ECIR. It is submitted that the Appellant was arrayed as an accused i.e. as accused no. 4, for the first time in the Charge-sheet No. 15/ 2013 dated September 10, 2013 in PMLA complaint. 3. The main allegations in the PAO against the Appellant were that the Appellant is a close associate of Mr Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy, and is a director in the company M/s Bharathi Cement Corporation Private Limited who had received an amount of INR 7,18,95,651/- towards remuneration, and he filed the application pursuant to which the mining lease dated 29.3.2006 for the limestone area of 2037.52 acres in Kadapa District (hereinafter referred to as 'Mining Lease') which was allegedly illegally granted in favour of M/s Bharathi Cement Corporation Private Limited ignoring the rights of M/s Gujarat Ambuja Cement Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'Gujarat Ambuja') by the actions of Mr Y.S. Jaganmohan Reddy, in conspiracy with others, and by influencing public servants and without due procedures being followed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is also reflected in OC No. 618 of 2016, net of taxes and other deductions. 7. In the month of April, 2010, after investment by PARFICIM, France, the Appellant's remuneration was revised to INR 66,00,000/- per annum i.e. an amount of 5.5 Lacs per month. 8. It is the case of the appellant that there is nothing illegal about being paid remuneration given that M/s Bharathi Cement Corporation Private Limited had overcome the investment phase and the plant had got commissioned with the hard work of the Appellant and further because M/s Bharathi Cement Corporation Private Limited was now a part of a much larger multinational group which had made substantial investments into the company. As far as filing of application filed by the appellant in the tender process is concerned, it may or may not be conclude at this stage as to whether the same was filed at the instance of Jagan Mohan Reddy or BCCL. At this stage, the validity of the impugned order to be examined. 9. It is submitted on behalf of the Appellant that the Adjudicating Authority has wrongly in holding that the Appellant herein did not possess high technical qualification or capabilities to justify the remuneration paid to hi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Y.S. Jaganmohan Reddy and/or any of his family members. 14. The Appellant had paid an amount of INR 2,24,15,189/- towards Income Tax to the tax authorities for income arising out of the remuneration paid to him in his capacity as full-time Director in M/s Bharathi Cement Corporation Private Limited. The Adjudicating Authority has failed to give due weightage to the relevant facts. 15. As regards Apartment no. 902 comprised in Tower-17LH, together with parking space each admeasuring 134.55 Sq. Ft., along with the undivided share of 515.55 Sq. Ft. in Lanco Hills, Manikonda, Hyderabad, it is submitted that the said immovable property is a residential unit, and a dwelling house where the Appellant and his family are presently living. The aforesaid residential property owned by the Appellant was purchased by him in the year 2012 for a total sale consideration of INR 1,16,49,860/- (excluding taxes, registration charges, etc.) [Sale deed is placed on record]. Admittedly, the Appellant had obtained a Housing Loan of INR 60 Lakhs from ING Vysya Bank (now renamed as Kotak Mahindra Bank) and he continues to pay the EMI of INR 65,604/- from his Bank Account No. 111020110011233 maintained w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Cement Corporation Private Limited concerning any apprehended involvement in any of the alleged illegal activities either in the present proceedings or in the proceedings of the CBI. In fact, in OC No. 276 of 2015, it is unequivocally stated at Page 85, para 25(1) that there is no illegality on the part of PARFICIM, France and it is an "innocent investor" who "is not found in any criminal activity". 22. The bona fides of the purchase of shares by PARFICIM, France, has not been questioned or challenged either by the CBI in the charge sheet filed by them or in the PAO itself, and further that there is not even a single averment on the source of the money used by the Appellant to purchase the shares of M/s Bharathi Cement Corporation Private Limited. In absence of any question on the source of funds used for purchase of the shares by the Appellant and in absence of any question on the bona fides of the purchase made by PARFICIM, France to whom the Appellant sold his shares, the money earned by the Appellant cannot be classified as 'proceeds of crime'. 23. The Appellant had also paid an amount of INR 19,12,586/- towards Capital Gains tax on sale of 10,000 equity shares held in M/s B....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that PARFICIM could not have invested in the company or that the said investment is in violation of the Companies Act, was misconceived and had no basis in law or fact. 27. It is submitted that after grant of the Mining Lease in favour of M/s Bharathi Cement Corporation Private Limited, there was no illegality in execution of the Mining Lease Deed on March 29, 2006. 28. The Government of Andhra Pradesh had, vide G.O. Ms. No. 648 Revenue (Assn. IV) dated May 14, 2007 constituted a Commission of Inquiry which was headed by Hon'ble Mr Justice P. Ramakrishnam Raju, a retired judge of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh. One of the matters to be inquired upon by the said Commission was as under: "Whether issuance of G.O. Ms. No. 95, Industries & Commerce (M.III) Department, dated 27-3-2006 by Government of Andhra Pradesh granting mining lease to M/s Raghuram Cements Ltd., for establishing their proposed cement factory in Kadapa District was in conformity with the established norms, procedures and provisions of law." After a detailed inquiry into the above issue, the Hon'ble Commission, vide its report dated August 27, 2007, unequivocally concluded as under: "...I have no d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntravention to the amendment made to Section 8(3) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 as Amendment to the section 8(3) (a) of the PMLA was introduced by the Finance Act, 2018 and came into force on 19.04.2018. It contemplates two different factual scenarios, namely: i. When the Respondent's investigations are still ongoing, and the Respondent has not yet filed a charge-sheet for offences under PMLA; and ii. When the Respondent has filed its charge-sheet before the Special Court which is designated for trial of offences under PMLA. In the first scenario, as per the amended Section 8(3), the attachment would continue for a period not exceeding ninety days. However, in the second scenario as contemplated under 12.1.1 (ii), as per the amended Section 8(3), the attachment would continue for the duration when the proceedings were pending before the court. 33. In the present case, few dates are relevant to discuss the issue raised on behalf of appellant:- i. Adjudicating Authority's Order confirming the PAO was passed on 23.11.2016; ii. Amended sub-section 3 of Section 8 to the PMLA by the Finance Act 2018 came into effect on 19.04.2018; iii. The Respondent filed ....