TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (5) TMI 2099
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tered on 13.08.2013 for the offence under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short 'the Act of 1988). The FIR was lodged mainly against the appellant Shishir Kumar, the then Assistant Manager, Zila Parishad, Vaishali, Govt. of Bihar and relatives for amassing assets disproportionate to the known sources of income. The disproportionate asset was calculated to the tune of Rs. 1,01,66,405/- in the FIR registered by Economic Offence Unit (EOU), Patna, Bihar. 3. As per the Inventory-cum-Seizure list prepared by the EOU, Patna during the course of search operation at the residence of the appellant Shishir Kumar on 14.08.2013, documents relating to various immovable properties worth Rs. 2,27,98,542/- were recovered. Those properties were acquired by the main accused Shishir Kumar in his own name as well as in the name of his wife Smt. Vinita Kumari, son Bhanu Sinha, daughter Smt. Pragya Kumari, father Nand Kishore Singh, brother Prabhat Keshav and mother-in-law Smt. Prem Prabha. It was then recorded that immovable properties worth Rs. 1,70,41,120/- were acquired by the main accused Shishir Kumar in different names of his family members and he....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that while attaching the properties of main accused Shishir Kumar, the respondents attached the properties belonging to his wife, son and daughter though they were having source to acquire it but ignoring the aforesaid, attachment of the properties of his wife, son and daughter was made in an illegal manner. The arguments aforesaid were made in reference to the appellants Smt. Vinita Kumari, Bhanu Sinha and Smt. Pragya Kumari. Appeal by Nand Kishore Singh 9. Learned counsel for the appellant Nand Kishore Singh submitted that two immovable properties belonging to the appellant have been attached though it had no connection with the alleged commission of crime by his son. The appellant served as a teacher and was getting salary. Apart from his service, the appellant was even involved in generating income from agriculture having 10 Bighas of land. He was an income-tax payee and in view of the above, he purchased two properties in the year 2007 and onwards utilizing the money because even after retirement of the appellant in 1986, he was getting regular pension and otherwise having agriculture income. The two immovable properties were wrongly taken to be part of the disproportion....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s purchased from time to time is given as under: Sr. No. Year No. of Property Amount in Rs. (At the time of acquisition 1. 1997 1 41,500/- 2. 1998 1 29,699/- 3. 1999 1 2,09,110/- 4. 2001 1 7,390/- 5. 2003 3 5,61,267/- 6. 2004 1 88,380/- 7. 2006 2 14,83,700/- 8. 2007 4 9,20,613/- 9. 2008 6 16,12,021/- 10. 2009 2 8,55,172/- 11. 2010 2 1,22,62,736/- 12. 2011 8 88,21,069/- 13. 2012 1 7,00,000/- Total 33 2,75,92,305/- 16. It is no doubt that initially the disproportionate asset was assessed to a sum of Rs. 1,01,66,405/- but as per the inventory-cum-seizure list prepared during the course of search operation, documents relating to various immovable properties worth Rs. 2,27,98,542/- were recovered. Those properties were acquired by the main accused Shishir Kumar in his own name as well as in the name of his other family members i.e. wife Smt. Vinita Kumari, son Bhanu Sinha, daughter Smt. Pragya Kumari, father Nand Kishore Singh, brother Prabhat Keshav and mother-in-law Prem Prabha. 17. It came on r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erquila, Hajipur. 3. Property acquired in the name of Prem Prabha, mother-in-law of Shishir Kumar vide sale deed no. 8107 dated 16.12.2003 having area of 2.5 decimal situated in Sahzadpur, Anderquila, Hajipur. 4. Property acquired in the name of Nand Kishore Sinha, father of Shishir Kumar vide sale deed no. 350 dated 17.01.2007 having area of 2.70 Decimal (1144 Sq. feet) situated in Sahzadpur, Anderquila, Hajipur. Property transferred in the name of Prabhat Keshav by his father vide sale deed No. 6250 dated 12.11.2007 having area of 0.94 Decimal (out of total area of 2.7 D) situated in Sahzadpur, Anderquila, Hajipur. 5. Property acquired in the name of Nand Kishore Sinha, father of Shishir Kumar vide sale deed no. 5500 dated 11.09.2000 having area of 17 Decimal situated in Basauli, Hajipur. Property transferred in the name of Prabhat Keshav by his father vide sale deed No. 6251 dated 12.11.2007 having area of 17 Decimal situated in Basauli, Hajipur. 6. Property acquired in the name of Prabhat Keshav, brother of Shishir Kumar vide sale deed no. 5285 dated 09.09.2008 having area of 12 Decimal (2 Kattha & 15 dhur) situated in Fatehpur Ekara, Thana & Ancha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... prior to 2009 could not have been attached. 23. We have considered the submission made by the counsel for the appellants. At the outset, it is necessary to state that the check period in this case is from the year 1980 till 2013 and has been indicated in the impugned order. The appellant on his own assumption taken the check period from the year 2009 till 2013. It seems to be based on some erroneous presumption and contrary to record. The properties attached by the respondents were acquired during the check period of 1980-2013. Thus, there is no illegality in the attachment of the properties acquired during the check period. Issue No.4 24. Learned counsel has questioned the attachment of the properties belonging to the main accused's wife Smt. Vinita Kumari, son Bhanu Sinha, daughter Smt. Pragya Kumari who said to have disclosed the source to acquire the properties yet attachment of their properties has been made. 25. We have referred a table to indicate transfer of the properties from time to time from one person to another and apart from the aforesaid, even the person who initially acquired the property. Apart from the aforesaid, the respondents have disclosed the fa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....properties worth of Rs. 16 lakhs and provided financial assistance to the family of main accused for a sum of Rs. 27 lakhs for which he could not disclose the source. Bhanu Sinha further stated that two more immovable properties were acquired in his name by his parents, thus he could disclose the source to purchase the property by himself. 28. Analysis of the property purchased vide sale deed no. 5782 dated 03.09.2016 further revealed that this property had been purchased in the year 2008 vide Sale deed no. 5285 dated 09.09.2008 in the name of Prabhat Keshav despite having meagre income of Rs. 30,000/- per month from stationary shop and STD Booth, as stated by him during his statement recorded under section 50(3) of PMLA on 30.06.2022. This shows that his income was not coherent with the acquisition of the immovable properties in his name. Hence, it can be concluded from the above that initially, this property has been acquired in the name of Prabhat Keshav by Shishir Kumar which was later transferred to Bhanu Sinha. Further, Prabhat Keshav and his family also used to live along with Shishir Kumar and his family during that period. Hence, it is evident from the above that the pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....with respect to Cheques/DD issued. Further, as per sale deed, payment of rest amount of Rs. 19 lakhs was also made through Cheques/DD issued from HDFC, Bank of India and Allahabad Bank. This shows that Pragya Kumari concocted the story of having purchased above mentioned flat through gifts and it was actually purchased by Shishir Kumar and Vinita Kumari in her name through their unaccounted money. 33. From the above, it appears that all the properties acquired in the name of Pragya Kumari have not been purchased by her as she was having no independent source of income. All the properties in her name were either purchased by her relatives or purchased through the alleged gifts received from them, especially during the period 2008- 2011. Further, there is no evidence produced in investigation with regard to the alleged gifts provided by Nand Kishore Sinha, Prabhat Keshav and his wife Anjali Pandey, Ravi Sundaram and his wife Renu Sharma and by others alleged to have given to Pragya Kumari except notarized affidavit, which is not a valid document and can be made postdated. 34. In the light of the above analysis, it is evident that the appellants could not satisfy the source of i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e respondents and would be referred while recording the findings for each appeal. Finding of the Tribunal in the case of Nand Kishore Singh 38. The two properties were found in the hands of the appellant Nand Kishore Singh who is none else but father of the main accused Shishir Kumar. The documents pertaining to the properties were found with the main accused during search operation on 14.08.2013. The appellant Nand Kishore Singh was a Government teacher and superannuated in the year 1986. The main accused Shishir Kumar and his family members said to have received gifts/financial assistance to the tune of Rs. 27 lakhs from appellant Nand Kishore Singh to justify the purchase of immovable properties by them though appellant Nand Kishore Singh himself was not having adequate source for it. His statement under Section 50(3) of the Act of 2002 was recorded. He had stated to have provided financial assistance to the main accused and Smt. Vinita Kumari apart from Pragya Kumari for the purchase of immovable properties but he was not knowing when and how much amount was given to them. The appellant could not submit any evidence to prove the source and the financial assistance to the per....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Finding of the Tribunal in the case of Prabhat Keshav 43. Three properties of the appellant Prabhat Keshav have been attached. He is none else but the brother of Shishir Kumar to be in possession of disproportionate assets to the known source of income. Appellant Prabhat Keshav in his statement recorded under Section 50 recorded on 30.06.2022 stated that his monthly income was of Rs. 30,000/- and thereby his yearly income was Rs. 3,60,000/-. As against the aforesaid, he had acquired or entered into agreement for the properties worth of Rs. 40,44,181/- in a span of four years. 44. On the analysis of the bank account maintained with Union Bank of India, there was cash deposits of Rs. 26.5 lakhs during the period of 2007-2011. No substantial deposit was observed in his bank account after the year 2011 which indicates that this account was utilized for putting cash and for acquisition of immovable property during the year 2010-2011. It was thus found that Shishir Kumar has utilized bank accounts of his family members and relatives, including his brother Prabhat Keshav for the purpose of purchase of the properties. It has come on record that Prabhat Keshav had incorporated a br....