TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 256
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ial Director (ER), Directorate of Enforcement, Kolkata. Ld. Adjudicating Authority vide the Impugned Order imposed penalty of Rs. 2,30,71,880/- under Section 13(1) of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (FEMA) for contravention of Section 3(a) and 4 of FEMA on each of the five Appellants. This Tribunal vide order dated 17.01.2018 allowed the applications for complete waiver of pre-deposit of penalty amounts filed by each of the five Appellants. The Appellants filed written arguments on 28.05.2025 and the Respondent filed the written arguments on 30.05.2025. 2. Ld. Counsel for the Appellants argued that the entire case of the Respondent Directorate is based upon a document which comprises of three pages received from the Income-Tax Department wherein the names of the Appellants appear. The Impugned Order is flawed in as much as it attributes the amount of US$ 2,406,604.90 reflected on the third page of the document as balance of Ambrunova Trust in the LGT Bank in Lichtenstein of which the beneficiaries are allegedly the five Appellants herein. Ld. Counsel further argued that the said document is a photocopy and in German language for which translation in English has been done....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....asis of the said order of the ITAT discharged Sh. Manoj Dhupelia on 11.04.2022. Since, Smt. Rupal Dhupelia expired on 24.02.2021, the Court abated the proceedings against her vide order dated 04.07.2022. The challenge by the Department of Income-Tax against the order of the ITAT was dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta on 04.12.2023 on the grounds of unexplained delay in filing the challenge. Ld. Counsel further stated that the Appeals and the writ petitions of the other three Appellants are pending before the Hon'ble High Court at Bombay, which has directed that in the meanwhile no coercive steps be initiated against the Appellants. Ld. Counsel therefore contended that since the Impugned Order is based upon the proceedings against the Appellants under the Income-Tax Act, quashing of which has assumed finality in so far as the two Appellants are concerned and since the basis is the same for the remaining three Appellants, the present proceedings under FEMA cannot survive. He cited the judgment dated 20.09.2019 of this Tribunal in the case of Viraj Chandrakant vs. Special Director wherein the Appeal was allowed on the ground that the document had not been authenticated as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ndent Directorate from the Income- Tax Department, it cannot be denied from the mere perusal of the copies of the said document, originally in German language, enclosed in the Appeal Paper Book that the said document relates to the Ambrunova Trust and the balance amount of US$ 2,406,604.90 equivalent to Indian Rs. 11,53,59,400/- was in the LGT Bank in Lichtenstein. The foreign origin of the document is obvious and patent. We note from the complaint dated 26.12.2014 that the said document is not listed explicitly in the relied upon documents. However, since the two Prosecution Complaints along with their enclosures filed against Sh. Manoj Kumar Dhupelia & Smt. Rupal Dhupelia and that against Sh. Ambrish Manoj Dhupelia, Smt. Bhavya Dhupelia & Sh. Manoj Kumar Dhupelia have been relied upon, it appears that the said documents are part of the enclosures of the two Prosecution Complaints. It is on record in the order dated 17.01.2018 of this Tribunal for complete waiver of the pre-deposit of penalty amount that then, Counsel for the Respondent had argued that Income-Tax Officer was not supposed to reveal the source of said information. In any case, nothing has been produced before us as ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ellants (Noticees) to have furnished such information which could corroborate their statements. Further, the ground has been taken that the Appellants did not deny the trustfulness of the document containing foreign exchange transaction pertaining to them. We find such an inference to be illogical. The Appellants herein were recording the statements as answers to certain questions raised by the Officer of the Respondent Directorate. Moreover, their statement of not even being aware about the Trust clearly demonstrates their denial of any role relating to the contents of the said document. It is also to be appreciated that the admissibility of the statements made u/s 37 of FEMA cannot be selective with respect to the contents of such statements. 8. In fact, we note from the Order dated 17.01.2018 (supra) of this Tribunal for complete waiver of the pre-deposit of penalty amount that an opportunity was offered to the Respondent to verify from the LGT Bank which has not been availed as nothing to that effect has been produced before us. Furthermore, in the order dated 17.01.2018 (supra) liberty was granted to file the application for modification of the said order, if certain material....