TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (4) TMI 686
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....undering by the appellant, the order of attachment has been confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant has given reference of the facts and submitted that the appellant is engaged in the business of Textile from the year 1985. The appellant company purchased the cloth and sold it after processing it in various parts of the country including Kolkata. The appellant was selling the cloth to many firms and individuals which include one Ajay Kumar Jain with whom they were having business activity since the year 2015. On supply of the cloths to Ajay Kumar Jain, the appellant raised the invoices against which due payment was made by Ajay Kumar Jain but taken to be the proceeds of crime. Shri Ajay Kumar Jain made the payment through the cheque in the bank account of the appellant firm yet the account aforesaid has been attached after registration of FIR by the CBI for the offences under Section 120-B, 420, 467, 468,471 of IPC and Section 7, 13 (2) and 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act against Amitesh Kumar Sinha, Sanjay Jain and Manoj Gupta. 4. The allegation against the accused was that they conspired to create bank accounts in the name of n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the case. 8. In the investigation, it was found that the bank accounts in the name of non-existing companies were opened by providing forged and fake documents. It was basically to channelize the demonetised money. After deposit of demonetised money in the bank accounts of non-existing companies, it was transferred to others through the bank transactions and therein the payment was made even to the appellant by non-existing companies with whom appellant had no business transactions. The amount in the bank account had been received by the appellant through the nonexisting companies at the instance of Ajay Kumar Jain who said to have requested the appellant to accept the payment through three different companies, namely, M/s Indian Traders, M/s Kolkata Suppliers and M/s Ganesh International. If the appellant had no business transaction with these companies, there was no reason to accept the payment through their bank account. It is more so when Ajay Kumar Jain had no relation with those companies so as to channelize the payment through those companies. The detailed investigation revealed that the accused had conspired to channelize the demonetized money through the bank transactions....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bank accounts was made by the companies with whom the appellant had no business transaction. It is said to have been made against the supplies of clothsto Ajay Kumar Jain under the invoices enclosed along with the appeal. There is nothing on record to show an arrangement for paymentof the amount toappellant by Ajay Kumar Jain through non-existing companies. 11. As per the accounting system, payment towards the supply of material has to be made by the firm to whom supplies have been made. It cannot by a stranger firm unless proper arrangements in writing are made. The facts of this case are quite alarming. The transaction to deposit the amount in the bank account of the appellant was not under normal circumstances but was at the time of demonetization of money by the Govt. of India. Although the appellant is not an accused but the proceeds of crime has been channelized to him, thus attachment cannot be held to be illegal. If the appellant has been defrauded by Ajay Kumar Jain by making the payment in his bank account through the non-existing companies‟ accounts, no one has prevented him to take necessary action against Ajay Kumar Jain as is permissible under law. The gist of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd Kolkata Suppliers were registered under Kolkata Municipal Corporation for the trades, Supplier of Non food items-Hardware goods, Supplier of Non food items-all types of paper & paper board and Supplier of Non food items-electronics & electrical goods, respectively. These firms were found non-existing at their correspondence addresses. CBI obtained opinion of handwriting expert of GEQD, Kolkata on various questioned documents relating to this case and opinion vide no. CFSL(K)/EE/2017/DOC/WB/1286/DXC-66/2017 dated 31.08.2017, which is part of documents relied upon, D-75, in the Charge sheet of the CBI, revealed that - (i) GEQD opinion confirmed that Sh. Sanjay Jain (A-2) has forged the signatures of Sh. Ashok Kumar MurarilalHada in original account opening form used to open account of M/s Ganesh International showing Sh. Ashok Kumar MurarilalHada as proprietor, in original Pay-inslips, cheques, authorization letter dated 16.11.2016, authorizing Mr. Manoj Gupta to deposit cash amounting Rs.1 crore in the account of M/s Ganesh International vide account no. 916020048270607, maintained at Axis Bank, Burrabazar branch, Kolkata. (ii) GEQD opinion has confirmed the writing of Sh. ....