TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 860
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... New Delhi. Penalty of Rs. 30,00,000/- was imposed on the Appellant Smt. Surender Kaur Sethi and her husband Shri Gurcharan Singh Sethi (expired on 19.08.2004) for the contravention of Section 8(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (FERA) vide the Impugned Order. 2. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant stated that the Appellant had approached the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi against the Order dated 02.04.2024 of this Tribunal, whereby the Appellant was directed to tender the original sale deed of property No. J-3/91/1st Floor Rajouri Garden, Delhi, as security with the Respondent Directorate for non- payment of the penalty amount of Rs. 30,00,000/-, before next date of hearing on 30.05.2024. Accordingly, the Application for waiver of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... J-3/91 (1st Floor Rajouri Garden, New Delhi), had been issued. However, the recovery certificate from the Respondent for realization of penalty of Rs. 30,00,000/- had been received by the local Revenue Authorities. Ld. Counsel contended that the Impugned Order dated 05.08.2004 was received by the Appellant in first week of December, 2011. He further contended that a copy of the Show Cause Notice (SCN) was received on 23.12.2011. Ld. Counsel stated that vide Order dated 03.11.2011 of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in W.P. (C) No. 7825/2011 and C.M. No. 17695/2011 the recovery proceedings against the petitioner had been stayed. 4. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant contended that the Ld. AA failed to appreciate that the deposits in the said acc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted 03.11.2011 shall continue to operate unless otherwise modified/revoked by the Appellate Tribunal. 6. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent Directorate stated that the Impugned Order is based on transaction details relating to account No. 6167 with PNB and Account No. 27262 with BOB. It is found in the Impugned Order that the Appellant deliberately deposited foreign exchange in the aforesaid accounts in amounts less than US $ 10,000 in order to circumvent the requirement of obtaining prior permission. Ld. Counsel stated that as per the submissions of the Bank of Baroda, the pay-in-slips were bearing the signatures of the deposit holders and also passport details. The said submissions cast suspicion on the residential status of the account ho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al Bank, New Delhi and No.27262 in Bank of Baroda, New Delhi revealed that the deposits in those accounts were made in such a manner that the foreign currency deposited were never exceeded US $ 10,000 or its equivalent in value. The dates of deposits i.e. the frequency of deposits in the accounts showed that deposits were made on consecutive dates wherein the amounts deposited if on being put together much exceeded the limits allowed by the R.B.I. A study of the transcripts of both the accounts together revealed frequency of deposits as below:- June 1992 (one deposit) July 1992 (four deposits) August 1992 (Two deposits) October 1992 (three deposits) January 1993 (4 deposits) February 1993 (7 depo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....charge caution and diligence in such transactions also. In the instant case, had the noticee banks exercised due caution, the repeated and frequent deposits of foreign currency involving amounts in such manner that the same did not exceed US$ 10,000 or its equivalent could have been detected and the transactions involving violations of the provisions of the FERA, 1973 could have been prevented. Examination of the case records revealed that there are no documents evidencing that the foreign exchange deposited in the NRE Accounts were, in fact, brought by the noticee during his visits to India. The reply/submissions of Bank of Baroda also did not contain any evidence to this effect. In effect, the evidence on record or the failure of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cation and Appeal Rules, 1974 r/w (3) & (4) of Section 49 of FEMA, as per Panchnama drawn at the last known address on 01.07.2004 and 12.07.2004. We also infer even from the pleadings of the Appellant that the property in Rajouri Garden, New Delhi continues to be owned by the Appellant. In view of this, we are unable to appreciate that why the Appellant could not have the necessary arrangement in place for communication of the notices addressed to her or to her Late Husband. In any case she is not prejudiced by the delayed communication of the Impugned Order, as the delay has been condoned. 9. On merit, we do find that the violation of Section 8(1) of FERA has occurred since the number and frequency of deposits in their joint accounts in....