TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 533
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....riginal Complaint No. 845/2017 (OC). The Provisional Attachment Order No. 11/2017 dated 06.10.2017 (PAO) issued in ECIR No. ECIR/11/DLZO/2016 dated 30.11.2016 was confirmed vide the Impugned Order. 2. Ld. Counsel for the Appellants submitted that the residential property bearing No. B-20, Moonlight Apartments, 70 IP Extension, Patparganj, Delhi-110092 has been attached to the extent of 50% and such attachment has been mechanically confirmed, ignoring material facts, legal submissions and the rights of family members having substantial and lawful interest in the said property. Ld. Counsels submitted that the attached property is the matrimonial and family home of the Appellants Smt. Anita Bansal and Sh. Ravinder Nath Bansal. They have been residing continuously in the said property, which is also shared by their son, Shri Prateek Bansal. Ld. Counsel contended that there is no allegation whatsoever against Smt. Anita Bansal and Shri Ravinder Nath Bansal under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), yet their residential house has been subjected to attachment, without enquiry, notice or consideration of their lawful rights and financial contributions. 3. Ld. Counsel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....6,258/-, and Rs 16,51,620/-, respectively. Yet, however, the property has been attached to the tune of Rs. 27,70,157/- (i.e. 50% of the value). The Department (Directorate of Enforcement) has not made any enquiry with the Appellants Shri Ravinder Nath Bansal or his wife in respect of this property, which department was legally duty bound to do before initiating punitive action of attachment. 5. Ld. Counsel for the Appellants submitted that despite such material facts, no enquiry whatsoever was conducted by the Respondent Directorate with Smt. Anita Bansal or Shri Ravinder Nath Bansal prior to initiating attachment proceedings, even though their rights and occupation of the property were within the express knowledge of the Department. The Ld. Adjudicating Authority also failed to ensure compliance with its own direction requiring certification that statements of all respondents had been recorded. Neither Smt. Anita Bansal nor Shri Ravinder Nath Bansal was summoned or heard in a meaningful manner, rendering the proceedings violative of principles of natural justice. Ld. Counsel for the Appellants submitted that the rejection of the impleadment application filed by Sh. Ravinder Nat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....from various persons, including S/ Shri Anirudh Agarwal, Ravi Agarwal and Vinod Deshmukh, and handed over the said cash to Sh. Mohit Garg for conversion into gold bullion. Sh. Mohit Garg, acting in furtherance of the conspiracy, deposited the demonetized currency into bank accounts of fictitious firms maintained at Axis Bank, Kashmiri Gate, Delhi. Thereafter, the amounts were transferred to the 'bullion traders' accounts and, with the assistance of Sh. Nitin Gupta, gold bars were procured against the demonetized currency. The gold was subsequently sold back at a premium, generating illegal commission for the Appellant. Such acts clearly demonstrate the knowing and conscious involvement of the Appellant in the offence of money laundering. 8. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent further submitted that while the Scheduled offence was under investigation by Delhi Police, P.S. Kashmiri Gate, Delhi, an ECIR was duly registered on the basis of FIR No. 416/2016 under Sections 420 and 120B of the IPC, 1860, which constituted the triggering offence for initiation of proceedings under the PMLA. During the investigation, statements of various persons were recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA, an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nses does not alter legal ownership nor does it negate the attachment of the tainted share of the property. The determination under the PMLA is not based on equitable considerations but on statutory ownership and the nexus of the property with the proceeds of crime. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the Appellants have failed to discharge the burden of proving that the attached share is untainted. The Respondent has successfully established a prima facie nexus between the attached portion of the property and the proceeds of crime. The Provisional Attachment Order and its confirmation have been passed strictly in accordance with Sections 5 and 8 of the PMLA and do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. The appeals are, therefore, devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed. 11. We have carefully considered the rival submissions, the Appeals and the Impugned Order dated 26.03.2018. The principal issue which arises for determination is whether the provisional attachment and its confirmation in respect of the residential property bearing No. B-20, Moonlight Apartments, 70 IP Extension, Patparganj, Delhi-110092, to the extent of 50%, is sustainable in law under the p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....netized currency up to tune of Rs. 12,36,50,000/- from Anirudh Aggarwal (Rs. 7.47 Crores), Vinod Deshmukh (Rs. 4.42 Crores) & Ravi Aggarwal (Rs. 47,50,000/-). Shri Prateek Bansal sold total 9 kg gold to Vinod Deshmukh S/o Sh. Ram Chander Deshmukh (5 kg at the rate of Rs. 48000/10g and 4 kg at the rate of Rs. 50500/10g) for total amount of Rs. 4.42 Crores. Shri Prateek Bansal also sold 1 kg gold to Sh. Ravi Agrawal at the rate of Rs. 47,500/10g. He also sold 5 kg gold to Sh. Anirudh Agarwal at the rate of Rs. 55,000/- for amount of Rs. 2.75 Crores. and five pieces of diamond for amount of Rs. 2.72 Crores. All these transactions were made in old demonetized currency and he made illegal gain of Rs. 37,00,000/- from above transaction. We also note that besides the own statements of Shri Prateek Bansal under Section 50 of PMLA admitting these facts, there are statements of Shri Nitin Gupta, Shri Shashank Jain and Shri Anirudh Agarwal about the involvement of the Appellant Shri Prateek Bansal. 13. With respect to the contention of the Appellants that the alleged acts fall merely within the domain of the Income Tax Act and do not constitute money laundering, does not have any basis. Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....proceeds of crime" is wide enough to not only refer to the property derived or obtained as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence, but also of the value of any such property. If the property is taken or held outside the country, even in such a case, the property equivalent in value held within the country or abroad can be proceeded with. The definition of "property" as in Section 2(1)(v) is equally wide enough to encompass the value of the property of proceeds of crime. Such interpretation would further the legislative intent in recovery of the proceeds of crime and vesting it in the Central Government for effective prevention of money laundering." 16. The submissions of Smt. Anita Bansal and Shri Ravinder Nath Bansal regarding their financial contributions towards the purchase consideration and repayment of housing loan instalments have been duly considered. However, payment of EMIs or household expenses, by itself, does not confer legal ownership or negate the attachment of the tainted share. Proceedings under the PMLA are not governed by equitable considerations but by statutory ownership and the nexus of the property with proceeds of crime. The burden ....