TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (9) TMI 1558
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....50,000/- on the appellant for contravention of Regulation 7 of the Foreign Exchange Management (Acquisition and Transfer of Immovable Property In India) Regulations, 2000. 2. The relevant facts of the case are that the appellant was a citizen of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, and held a passport of that country. He purchased two immovable properties in Dehradun, Uttarakhand, India, one bearing Khasra No. 339/3. Situated as Mauja Niranjanpur Pargana, Central Doon, Dehradun for a consideration of Rs. 13.50 lakh in 2007, and another bearing Khasra No. 744, Mauja Kanwali Pargana, Central Doon, District Dehradun for a consideration of Rs. 19 Lakh in 2012. Before acquiring the aforesaid immovable properties, the appellant did not take any per....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rned Special Director (Appeals), after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, passed an order remanding back the matter to the Adjudicating Authority to pass a fresh order after examination of the documents submitted by the respondents. 7. Accordingly, de novo adjudication proceedings were held. The Learned Adjudicating Authority, while holding that there was no case for confiscation of the property under section 13(2) of FEMA, 1999, imposed a further penalty of Rs. 4,50,000/- on the appellant, Shri Rajkumar Malhotra. 8. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed an appeal under section 17 of FEMA before the learned Special Director(Appeals) challenging the order of the Adjudicating Authority. The Learned Special Direc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r, the Deputy Director of Enforcement preferred an appeal against the adjudication order, which resulted in the imposition of further penalty. The main contentions of the appellant against imposition of further penalty on him are as follows: * That the appellant was granted citizenship of India on 15-2-2017 and a certificate of naturalization was issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs under the Citizenship Act, 1955 on that date. In view of this, he submits, the adjudicating authority ought to have considered that the transaction pertaining to the purchase of the immovable property has been "automatically regularised" and the appellant cannot be treated as a Pakistani national for the purpose of FEMA regulations * That there was no invo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....thority concerned would be justified in refusing to impose the penalty. Certain other case laws have also been cited by the Appellant in favour of his case. 10. The learned counsel for the respondent has strongly contested the contentions put forward on behalf of the appellant. It is submitted that at the relevant time the appellant was not a citizen of India but citizen of Pakistan and ignorance of law cannot be a defence. It is also contended that the order of the Adjudicating Authority which has been upheld by the learned Special Director(Appeals) was reasonable and fair in so far as the learned appellate authority did not find any merit in the proposal for confiscation under section 13(2) of FEMA, 1999,but merely imposed a further pena....