TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (12) TMI 802
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....'). By the impugned order, the Tribunal had allowed the appeal preferred by the respondent and had quashed the Provisional Attachment order dated 04.11.2016, as well as the order dated 17.03.2017, confirming the order dated 04.11.2016. 2. By the said order dated 04.11.2016, certain immoveable properties of the respondent (appellant before the Tribunal) had been provisionally attached. The said order was confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority by an order dated 17.03.2017. 3. The order of Provisional Attachment is premised on a case instituted against the respondent and her husband (Major General Anand Kumar Kapur) under Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. A chargesheet (chargesheet no. 3 dated 26.10.2009) has been ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... General Anand Kumar Kapur. A charge was framed against the respondent under Section 109 of the IPC read with Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the PC Act. 6. By the judgment dated 27.09.2016, the Learned Special Judge held that the accused Major General Anand Kumar was unable to satisfactorily account for the assets to the extent of Rs.2,22,04,290/-. Accordingly, Major General Kapur was convicted under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act. Insofar as the respondent was concerned, the Court held that there was no evidence that the respondent had abetted her husband Anand Kumar in amassing the said properties and accordingly, acquitted her of the charges. 7. On 29.09.2016, the Special Judge, by an order on sent....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t filed an appeal before the Tribunal, inter alia, seeking to challenge the provisional attachment order dated 04.11.2016 and the order dated 17.03.2017 passed by the Adjudicating Authority, whereby the order dated 04.11.2016 was confirmed. 11. On 13.04.2018, the Tribunal passed the impugned order allowing the appeal preferred by the appellant (respondent herein). The Tribunal held that since the respondent had been acquitted by the CBI Court, the properties of the respondent could not be treated as 'proceeds of crime'. In the said circumstances, the Tribunal directed that the three properties, which did not form part of the confiscated properties, be released from the said attachment. 12. Thereafter, the Union of India has filed the pres....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pondent's husband and on a plain examination of the findings on the basis of which respondent's husband was being convicted of the offence under Section 13(1)(e) of the PC Act. The allegation against the respondent's husband was that he had amassed assets disproportionate to his sources of income. It was found that as on 10.10.2007 (end of the check period), the respondent's husband (Major Gen. Anand Kumar Kapoor) was in possession of assets to the extent of Rs.5,51,92,598/-. These included both movable and immovable assets, either in his own name or in the name of the respondent. Three immovable properties of the respondent which are sought to be attached by the appellant were part of the immovable assets taken into account while calculati....