TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 18
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Land and building Address Property at Sivakasi at No. 52, 53, 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....8. As per the complaint, the complainant Shri V. Ayyadurai, an N.R.I settled in USA, was the Managing Director of M/s Madras Madurai Properties Ltd. and was involved in the real estate business, lodged FIR for committing fraud with him. In the said complaint he, has alleged that Shri M. Rajkumar was an Auditor for him and his companies. In connection 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. R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....week of February 2006, an account was opened in the name of Ramiah Chettiar, and pasted a photo of Ramiah Chettiar, in the account opening form, in front of the Bank Manager of Tamilnad Mercantile bank at Pudukottiah and he (Ramanathan) has signed as introducer, he (Ramanthan) did not know about Ramiah Chettivar and as requested by Shri Arumugam and 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 wit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....use of Shri M. Rajkumar was traced at No. 29, Pushpa Nagar Main Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-34 and search was conducted on 27.07.2016, and seized incriminating documents from the said premises. During interrogation Shri M. Rajkumar stated that he is qualified CA and was daughter of Shri Ayyadurai and his firm namely M/s Millenium Software India Pvt. Ltd. He was handling the Statutory audit, Tax Audit of the firm and the personal Income-Tax Returns of the Shri Ayyadurai 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 allegati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pavana Dibbur v. Enforcement Directorate [(2023) 15 SCC 91] and in the case of Punjab & Haryana High Court Seema Garg v. Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement [SCC OnLine P & H 738]. Prayer is accordingly made to set aside the impugned order dated 17.07.2017 and thereby allow the present appeal by releasing the aforesaid properties. 4. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the respondent ED submitted that the ancestral properties 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is hereby clarified that "proceeds of crime" include property not only derived or obtained from the scheduled offence but also any property which may directly or indirectly be derived or obtained as a result of any criminal activity relatable to the scheduled offence]. xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx The perusal of this definition reveals three limbs of the definition out of which first part refers to the property acquired or derived directly or indirectly by a person relating to the criminal activity 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 Ax....