TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 857
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....6/2009 dated 27.04.2009 and registered at Sooramangalam S.R.O., Salem. 2. As per the facts of the case, police report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. was filed before Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore against Manickam Dorai, the Bishop of the CSI Diocese, Coimbatore. As per allegation, during the period from 2005 to 2008 Sh. Manickam Dorai in connivance with his brother, Sh. M. Moorthy, the then Honorary Secretary of CSI, Erode, Christian College of Arts and Science for Women; Sh. Maneson, Former Convener of Higher Education Committee, Coimbatore, CSI Diocesan Council; and Sh. Swamidoss, Treasurer of CSI Diocese, Coimbatore had dishonestly mismanaged and misappropriated the funds of the Diocese Coimbatore, which was a public Charitable Trust to the tune of Rs. 3.53 Crores. Sh. Manickam Dorai also connived with his brother Sh. M. Moorthy of CSI Teacher's Training Institute, Erode and Swamidoss, Treasurer of CSI Diocese, Coimbatore and had mishandled the Trust funds to the tune of Rs. 77,70,000/- during the period from 2004 to 2007. Moreover, Sh. Manickam Dorai had conspired with his brother Sh. M. Moorthy and Sh. Manesan, and had created forged documents and had used the same as genuine ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....5.2012, informed that his daughter Smt. Mercy Angela is having SB A/c no.5124127426 in Citi Bank, Coimbatore. ED inquired from the said bank and the bank statement did not reflect any payment/transfer favouring the seller of the property in question i.e. S/Sh. Kandasamy and S. Verrappan. Accordingly, it was concluded by ED that Manickam Dorai had taken active part in the commission of crime during the period 2004 to 2008, and generated proceeds of crime to the extent of Rs. 7.93 crores. Out of said proceeds of crime, purchased the property in question in the name of his wife Smt. Soodamani Dorai. Accordingly, the Joint Director, ED having reason to believe for acquiring the said property out of the funds from proceeds of crime, provisionally attached the said property vide PAO no.01/2013 dated 14.02.2013. Thereafter, ED filed Original Complaint no.178/2013 before the Adjudicating Authority for confirmation of PAO. The Adjudicating Authority after going through the allegations made in the OC, coupled with the documents and the statements recorded u/s 50 and being satisfied with the same, issued the Show Cause Notice to the defendants. After receiving the respective replies and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....period 2003 to 2008, the question of attaching the said property does not arise. Prayer is accordingly made to allow the present appeal. 4. Ld. counsel for the Respondent strongly controverted the submissions made by Ld. Counsel for the appellant, on each and every issue, which will be reflected in detail during our analysis and findings in the following paras, in order to avoid unnecessary repetition. 5. After hearing the rival submissions, following issues emerge:- I) Whether there is lapse of PAO (even after deducting the period of stay) as mentioned in u/s 5(1) & (3) of PMLA, 2002? If yes, whether confirmation order passed by the Adjudicating Authority is ineffective? II) Whether the impugned property of the appellant can be attached, even if, she was never charged for commission of any predicate offence, as chargesheet was filed by the police, only against her husband Manickam Dorai and others? III) Whether the said property was purchased in the name of appellant Smt. Soodamani Dorai on account of financial assistance from her daughter Smt. Mercy Angela and the same is thus not a proceed of crime? IV) Whether the property in question b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Day. iv) Fourthly, after the vacation of stay the defendants (herein appellants) never moved application for resumption of proceedings before the Adjudicating Authority along with their documents in their defence. Hence, a wilful defaulter cannot take this plea that period of limitation will again start running from 04.10.2018, without waiting for period of 30 days to challenge order of Hon'ble High Court. v) Fifthly, in absence of any saving clause the amended provision of 180 days will prevail. Moreover, a procedural law does not constitute accrual of any substantive right in favour of the appellant with respect to pre- amended provision. vi) Sixthly, the purpose of the attachment proceedings is to protect the property, till the conclusion of the investigation of the offence of money laundering and after filing of prosecution complaint, till the conclusion of trial. The present attached property is already stated to be cited in the list of properties for the purpose of confiscation in the prosecution complaint filed before PMLA Court. Therefore, technically the present appeal cannot be allowed on the said ground, as now this is the prerogative of the t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....order, may end up in being named as Accused in the complaint to be filed by the authorised officer concerning offence Under Section 3 of the 2002 Act. 69. We find force in the stand taken by the Union of India that the objectives of enacting the 2002 Act was the attachment and confiscation of proceeds of crime which is the quintessence so as to combat the evil of money-laundering. The second proviso, therefore, addresses the broad objectives of the 2002 Act to reach the proceeds of crime in whosoever's name they are kept or by whosoever they are held." [Emphasis supplied] Therefore, the property in the hands of any person in possession of proceeds of crime can be attached, even if that person is not accused for commission of the predicate offence or the offence of money-laundering. Accordingly, issue no. II) is decided against the appellant and in favour of the respondent ED. 8. Now, coming to the issue III), the Ld. counsel for the appellant has contested that the final order passed by the Hon'ble ITAT would prevail whereby the property purchased by the appellant is considered to have been purchased using the amount given to her by her daughter. However, the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the proceeds of crime by her father Sh. Manickam Dorai, from India to her account. Further, during the proceedings before the Income Tax Authorities, the sellers of the property have clearly denied having any knowledge about the reported middlemen to whom Cheques have been issued viz. Ravikumar, Sikandar Batcha and Bharathiraj and also denied of having received money from the said persons towards the said property. Moreover, on 16.05.2012, Sh. Manickam Dorai vide letter of the said date, informed that his daughter Smt. Mercy Angela is having SB A/c no.5124127426 in Citi Bank, Coimbatore, however, the ED inquired from the said bank and the bank statement did not reflect any payment/transfer favouring the seller of the property in question i.e. S/Sh. Kandasamy and S. Verrappan. Perusal of sale deed dated 27.04.2009 vide document no. 2186/2009 reflects that the executor received a sum of Rs. 6,84,900/-, but the same is silent regarding payment by cash or by way of cheques. Accordingly, there is nothing on record to corroborate the contention of the appellant that the said payment was made by her daughter, Mercy Angela. Hence, the appellant has not been able to discharge her burden of ....