TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 522
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Money Laundering Act, 2002 (in short `the Act of 2002') to challenge the order dated 31.08.2021 passed by the Adjudicating Authority confirming the Provisional Attachment Order dated 08.01.2020. 2. It is a case where 53 FIRs were registered with Faridabad Police and EWO Delhi against SRS Group of Companies and individuals. It was followed by charge sheet for the offence under Section 420, 467,471 and 120-B IPC. The appellant was not named as an accused either in the FIR or ECIR but her husband's involvement was shown and for that appellant said to be recipient of the proceeds of crime and, therefore, apart from the provisional attachment of properties of many defendants, property belonging to the appellant i.e. House No. 537, Sector 14....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....operty has been given. Another relevant fact is in regard to the payment by M/s Shivnash Sales Agencies Pvt. Ltd. to the appellant in two trenches of Rs. 25 lakhs making it a total of Rs. 50 lakhs. M/s Shivnash Sale Agencies Pvt. Ltd. is said to be an associate company of SRS Group of Companies where the main accused Anil Jindal was associated and, therefore, payment of Rs. 50 lakhs to the appellant by M/s Shivnash Sale Agencies Ltd. has also been taken towards the proceeds of crime. Another allegation is in regard to the payment by M/s SRS Real Infrastructure Ltd. to the appellant. It was alleged that huge amount was given to the appellant and her family members to layer the proceeds of crime and accordingly the justification for attachmen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted argument raised by the counsel for the parties. 8. The case of the appellant is that she had received a sum of Rs. 62.50 lakhs towards the salary out of which Rs. 7.18 lakhs was deducted towards TDS and in hand salary of Rs. 55.32 lakhs was received by her between April, 2010 to March, 2016 i.e. for a period of six years. It was received as a capacity of the employee but the respondents have not accepted the fact aforesaid despite the production of income- tax return and the assessment order taking block period and accordingly the tax was paid. The documents have been produced regarding deduction of TDS from time to time on the receipt of salary. The detailed facts pertaining to it have been given but in the light of statement of an ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he period 2010-11 to 2016-17, the documents have been placed on record to show scrutiny of the income of the appellant under Section 153 of the Income Tax Act. It is taking the block period for assessment. The respondents have failed to give any explanation denying the fact aforesaid by producing documentary evidence vis-à-vis the oral. It is more so when the salary was not received as a lump sum or in one go but from time to time. The bank statement produced by the appellant on the direction of the Tribunal supports the statement of the appellant thus we are unable to accept that receipt of the salary was nothing but the proceeds of crime. We are not in agreement with the view taken by the respondents and accordingly receipt of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e appellant was refunded by M/s SRS Real Infrastructure Ltd. from time to time between 22.02.2017 to 19.7.2017. It was in six instalments out of which Rs. 23 lakhs was paid on 27.02.2017, 12 Lakhs on 30.05.2017, 50 Lakhs on 08.06.2017 Rs. 9 lakhs on 18.06.2017 and last amount of Rs. 50 lakhs on 19.07.2017. The bank statement has been submitted to substantiate the aforesaid but the respondents have taken the aforesaid to layer the proceeds of crime ignoring the act that the appellant has taken the loan from Punjab National Bank for purchase of Villa and on cancellation, she was entitled to get refund of the amount. The amount refunded by M/s SRS Real Infrastructure Ltd. has been taken to be proceeds of crime in ignorance of the documents ava....