TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 18
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., 54, 54A PKS Street, Sivakasi, Virudhanagar District(inherited property from father being the only son) Patta No. Survey No. Extent 3500 EC No. Guideline value in Rs. 8,00,000/- SRO Address SRO, Sivakasi 2. Land detail Vacant Land Address Lokesh Towers, No. 18, Kodambakkam High Road, Teynampet Village, Chennai-34 Patta No. Survey No. Plot No. 1 (Part) in the layout plan sanctioned by Corporation of Madras in B.A. No. 821 of 1938, bearing Part of O.S. No. 3403, C.C No. 174, previously R.S. No, 2/8 (Part) now R.S. No. 2/16 (Part), Block No. 1 of Mylapore Village of an extent of 4981 Sq. Ft. undivided share 641/20446 458/1991 dt. 10.06.1991 M. Rajkumar EC No. Extent Guideline value in Rs. 67.568 3. 522/1994 M. Rajkumar Land detail Land with Building Address Flat at no. 15, Shenoy Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-34  ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ction with the real estate business, Mr. Rajkumar had brought one Mr. S.A.S. Ramaiya Chettiyar alias Yogi in the month of September 2005 and had informed that he is owner some valuable land in MRC Nagar and it was good opportunity to invest on the same. As the transaction did not go through, the said Raj Kumar had informed him that Mr. S.A.S. Ramaiya Chettiyar owns another property i.e. a land admeasuring 10 grounds, situated at Door No. 58/59, Survey No 915, Hunters Road, Vepery, Purusaiwalkam, Chennai-600007 Further, Shri Rajkumar had informed that the said Property was initially acquired by the Adi Dravidar Welfare Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, but subsequently by way of court order, the Government of Tamil Nadu had relinquished their right over the "Property", in favour of the said Mr. S.A.S. Ramaiva Chettiyar. Believing Mr. Rajkumar's word, he had entered into an agreement for sale in respect of the said "Property" with Mr. S.A.S. Ramaiya Chettiyar, represented by its Power of Attorney Mr. P. Arumugam on 10.02 2006 and the same was registered in Doc. No. 325 of 2006 at SRO Periamet, for the total sale consideration of Rs. 4,79,60,000/-. In this regard, he (Shri V. Ayya....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Shri Rajkumar, he (Ramanathan) involved in the act of opening, the forged bank account in Tamilnad Mercantile Bank and withdraw the amount. Shri Subramani @ S.S. Mani stated that * in the year 2005 late Armugam informed him that he was a power of attorney for the property at MRC Nagar and Hunter's Street Purusaiwalkam, owned by Sh. Ramiah Chettiyar; * the late Arumugam had informed him that the sale of above property, by creating a forged document would fetch them a crore of Rupees, in this connection Shri Rajkumar, Auditor and Shri Balasubramaniam, VAO would assist; * he had received Rs. 10 lakhs from Shri Rajkumar against Rs. 50 lakhs as agreed upon for removing the encroachment of the property at MRC Nagar and to sale the property; * subsequently, Shri Rajkumar came along with Shri Ayyadurai and showed the property at MRC Nagar; * Shri Arumugam has informed that Shri Ayyadurai had given power to Shri Rajkumar to purchase the property as he was going abroad; * Shri Rajkumar had informed that he would create fake document and would give it to him (Shri Subramani @ S.S. Mani) and requested him to sell the property; * Having known that the property was taken over ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as Shri Ayyadurai involved in the business of real estate in the name of Madras Madurai Properties Pvt. Ltd., he occasionally used to advise him (Shri Ayyadurai) in the real estate business for which he had received money from Shri Ayyadurai, the consulting fees. He had received the money from Shri Ayyadurai for the services he had rendered as an auditor and also in the business of the real estate done by him. He was unable to recollect the amount however he tendered the copy of the documents of the eight properties for further action. With regard to the receipt of money of Rs. 2,48,60,000 in cash from Shri Ayyadurai, Shri M. Rajkumar stated that he had received the amount from Shri Ayyadurai, but denied the allegation and stated that said amount was towards the service rendered by him. He stated that he is not in possession of any amount. Accordingly, his inherited property valued at Rs. 2.5 crores situated at 54A P.K.S Street, Sivakasi registered vide document no. 115/1957 with SRO Sivakasi was taken for attachment, along with the properties of his wife Shri Anna Rajkumar situated at village Oruthattu village purchase for some of Rs. 14,50,000/- from Shri Soundarajan through Shr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es inherited by the Appellant as well as properties which were purchased by him in his name or in the name of his family members even before the commission of scheduled offence can also be attached as value thereof. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary Vs. Union of India, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 929. He pointed out that the present accused committed the offence in the month of February, 2006, and thereby, committed fraud on the Complainant Sh. Ayyadurai to the extent of Rs. 4,79,60,000/- out of which sum of Rs. 2,49,60,000/- was obtained by the Appellant Rajkumar directly from the Complainant. He pointed out that present Appellant after the commission of fraud absconded from the proceedings, but later on he was arrested and was also found in possession of properties in his name and in the name of his wife Smt. Anna Rajkumar. The said two properties mentioned at Sl. No. 4 & Sl. No. 5 in paragraph no. 1 above was purchased by Appellant in her name in the year 2006-07, which clearly shows that the said two properties were purchased in her name out of proceeds of crime. Even otherwise, Appellant M....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ivity to a scheduled offence. The second part includes "the value of any such property". The second part is generally mixed with third part for giving interpretation. However, an elaborate judgment on the issue has been given by the Delhi High Court in the case of Prakash Industries Ltd. v. Directorate of Enforcement reported in 2022 SCC OnLine Del 2087. The relevant para no. 105 of this judgment is reproduced as under:- "105. It would be pertinent to recall that properties which were acquired prior to the enforcement of the Act may not be completely immune from action under the Act in light of what this Court had held in Axis Bank. As was explained by the Court in Axis Bank, the expression proceeds of crime envisages both "tainted property as well as "untainted property" with it being permissible to proceed against the latter provided it is being attached as equal to the "value of any such property" or "property equivalent in value held within "the country or abroad". However, both the italicised categories would be liable to be invoked in cases where the actual tainted property cannot be traced or found out. It is only where the respondents are unable to discover the tainted pr....