TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 934
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi, and on the basis of the said information the aforesaid premises of Shri Praveen Sharma was searched on 29.11.96 which resulted in seizure of Rs. 2,60,000/- and incriminating documents reflecting transactions in foreign currencies. Praveen Sharma in his statement dated 29.11.96 recorded under section 40 of FERA, 1973 admitted dealing in sale/purchase of gold and sale/purchase of foreign currencies from/to foreign nationals in black market rates. The currency and documents seized by the officer from the said premises belong to him and that they pertain to his dealing in aforesaid transactions. While explaining seized documents (Marked "A") Shri Praveen Sharma in his aforesaid statement stated that the said documents relates to the account of foreign currency purchased by him and also decoded the codes used by him in these documents. Shri Surinder Singh (Not a noticee) employee of Praveen Sharma in his statement dated 29.11.96 recorded under section 40 of the FERA, 1973 stated that he attended to the telephone calls in the absence of Shri Praveen Sharma and that persons like Doctor of Jama Masjid, Manoj of Karol Bagh, and Gupta of Raigerpura, Devinder of Ki....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... a noticee) in his statement dated 8.1.97 interalia, stated that he had come from Bangladesh and he came to the premises of Mr. Maqbool Ahmed @ Doctor for selling the seized US$.300/- to him. Shri Abdul Mobin (not a noticee) interalia, stated that he was an employee of M/s Altaf Travel, 114, Bazar Matia Mahal, Jama Masjid, Delhi and that his employee Abdul Mannan gave him the travelling cheques totaling to US$.2000/- with the direction to show the same to Maqbool Ahmed and enquire its rate and the said Traveler Cheques were seized from him by the officers. Shri Maqbool Ahmed @ Doctor, noticee no.2 in his statement dated 8.1.97, interalia, stated that the officers had seized the aforesaid foreign currency from Shri Abdul Mobin and Mohd. Shahbuddin and if the officer had not seized, these persons would have sold the same to him. He knew Shri Praveen Sharma, whose telephone No. is 7520850. He was dealing in foreign currency with Shri Praveen Sharma. For the last six months he had not conducted any transactions with him. He was aware certain documents were recovered from Shri Praveen Sharma and he was arrested. He was also aware that these seized documents made a mention about him al....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ions on 16.04.2008 and also denied the allegations vide letters of different dates. Seeing the fact that on the basis of specific information that Sh. Praveen Sharma is engaged in sale and purchase of foreign currency on a large scale at his premises situated at Flat no.203-A. LIG Type Motia Khan, DDA Flat, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi, his premises were searched. During the search Sh. Praveen Sharma was found in possession of cash of Rs. 2,60,000/- along with many incriminating documents which reflected transactions in foreign currencies. On the basis decoded documents by Sh. Praveen Sharma coupled with his statement recorded under Section 40 of FERA as mentioned above, it was held that the defence taken by Sh. Praveen Sharma is devoid of any merit. The seized Indian Currency is not accounted as claimed by him, and accordingly, the penalty of Rs. One Crore was imposed and seized cash was ordered to be confiscated. Aggrieved by the said order, appellant Praveen Sharma has filed the present appeal. 3. During the arguments, Ld. Counsel for the Appellant submitted that search was conducted at the premises of Appellant Parveen Sharma on 29.11.1996. As per the allegations, some loose sheets ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....D submitted that during the search at the premises of the appellant on 29.11.1996 many incriminating documents were recovered. The said documents were decoded by the Appellant himself to reveal the nature of transactions mentioned therein. Statement of the Appellant Praveen Sharma and his employee Surender Singh were also recorded u/s 40 of FERA, 1973. Appellant admitted the fact that he was involved in illegal purchase of foreign exchange and he was using the purchase foreign exchange for making payments in lieu of smuggled gold. His employee Surender Singh corroborated the above fact and also stated that he used to attend the telephone calls in absence of his employer Praveen Sharma. Doctor of Jama Majid, Manoj of Karol Bagh, Gupta of Raigarpura, Devender of Kinari Bazar, Purshottam of Katra, Kushal Rai and One Sandeep used to make telephone to Appellant. Surender Singh further disclosed that Appellant was purchasing gold from person coming from Russia and other countries and used to make payments for these transactions in dollars and other foreign currencies. He further pointed out that Praveen Sharma obtained affidavit of Surender Singh dated 03.12.2011, retracting his previous....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....raising this issue at this belated stage does not arise, as it will not be practically possible to trace out and place the said documents of record after more than 25 years, due to shifting office and being very old record. He stressed that Appellant has not pointed out viz particular document was not supplied to him. Appellant himself not field the supplied copies to him, as he is conscious of the fact that there is no escape for getting any relief on the basis of the said recovered documents. He further stressed that as the said documents/slips were recovered from the premises of the appellant, it leaves to presumption that the order was same. Appellant never disputed his writing in the said documents. He argued that the citation relied upon by the Appellant are not applicable to the facts of the present case, in view of the incriminating documents statement recorded u/s 40 of FERA and the conduct of the Appellant. He further pointed out that the co-noticee namely, Shane e Alam, and M/s Lee Design also filed the appeals no. 134 & 135 of 2011 against the impugned order, but their appeals are already dismissed by this Appellant Tribunal on the same set of allegations, vide order da....