TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (4) TMI 1770
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd its firm for challenge to the order dated 01.12.2022 passed by the Adjudicating Authority confirming the Provisional Attachment Order (PAO) No. 07/2022 dated 07.06.2022. 2. It is a case where an FIR was registered by the CBI, Bank Securities and Fraud Cell, New Delhi against M/s Shakti Bhog Foods Ltd. (in short 'M/s SBFL') involved in preparing biscuits and cookies at Haridwar under the brand name DIVSS. The allegation was that the Company had obtained huge loans from a consortium banks led by SBI but failed to discharge its loan liability thus was declared NPA by the lending banks on 31.03.2015. The total loss caused by M/s SBFL to the consortium of banks was of a sum of Rs. 3269.42 Crores. The criminal case was registered for the of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../s SBFL yet an amount of Rs. 9,80,188/- alleged to have been received by the appellants from M/s Lachhu Ram Agarwal and Co. has been made liable for attachment though the amount quantified above was not even received by the appellants. At this stage, it would be relevant to refer a Table showing the amount received by the appellant Shri Ramesh Goyal or its Associate firm towards the professional fee and is quoted hereunder: S. No. Financial Year Fees (Rs.) Cash Deposited Remarks 1. 2011-12 16.545 ---- Audit Fee 2. 2012-13 19,663 15,000 Rs.19,663 audit fee for FY 2011-12 3. 2013-14 28,090 4,00,000 Rs.28,090 audit fee for FY 2012-13 4. 2014-15 28.090 25,000 Rs.28,090 a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the nephew and employee of Ravi Ramesh & Associates has been attached whereas Shri Rattan Lal Goyal was having independent professional practice and never remained an employee of Ravi Ramesh & Associates. He may have received independent fee being a professional person but has been shown to be an employee of appellant's Associates/Company for attachment of the property without any reason. The professional fee received by Shri Rattan Lal Goyal has been taken to be proceeds of crime. Thus, the prayer was made to cause interference in the impugned order. 9. The counsel for the respondents contested the appeal and submitted that the appellants are the beneficiary of the proceeds of crime thus their property was rightly attached. The prayer ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of Rs. 5,00,000/- received by the appellant towards the sale was returned back which has been ignored by the respondents. 13. In the similar manner, one Rattan Lal Goyal was shown to be the employee of Ravi Ramesh & Associates though he was an independent professional person and even did not work as employee of the firm. The amount received by Shri Rattan Lal Goyal towards his professional fee has been clubbed and attached by the respondents erroneously. The respondents have failed to verify the receipt of the amount though it has been indicated in the order that it was received through Rattan Lal Goyal, nephew & employee of Ravi Ramesh & Associates. However, we find that Rattan Lal Goyal was an independent professional person thus money....