TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 1212
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... amended by the Amending Act of 2018 against Shri Ajay Kumar Das and Smt. Sanghamitra Das. As per the FIR, Ajay Kumar Das was found in possession of the assets disproportionate to the known source of income to the tune of Rs. 3,00,79,538/- during the check period from 24.02.1986 till 12.08.2020 (the date of search). The FIR would reveal that Ajay Kumar Das has allegedly committed misconduct as a public servant by possessing disproportionate assets and intentionally enriching himself illicitly to the tune of Rs. 3,00,79,538/- during the check period given above. 3. Shri Das had no assets at the beginning of the check period i.e. 24.02.1986. At the end of the check period, he was found in possession of the assets aggregating to Rs. 2,58,91,427/- in the form of bank balances, house properties, land plots, vehicles, etc. in his name and in the name of his family members. The net income of Shri Das and his family from known/lawful sources was of Rs. 2,40,00,000/-. Shri Das and his family members had incurred expenditure approximately Rs. 2,81,88,111/- during the check period which include repayment of loans, investment in insurance policies, expenses on course fees and stay of two da....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Rs. 3,00,000/- from his department and thereupon he built the first floor in two parts out of which the first part was constructed in 2000-01 out of the advance of Rs. 75,000/- from HUDCO and the rest part was constructed in the years 2018-20 out of part withdrawal of Rs. 10,00,000/- from GPF. Shri Das further stated about purchase of 3 agricultural lands having Plot No.700, 1123 and 1125 at Gopal Bindha, Bhadrak out of his own savings. When he was asked to submit the proof, he failed to produce any documentary evidence in this regard and to the source, specifically in regard to the purchase of 3 agricultural lands. On a further scrutiny of the sale deed of flat at Bijaylaxmi Apartment in Bhubaneswar in the name of Ajay Kumar Das, it was found that a sum of Rs. 8,84,000/- was paid in cash. He could not explain the source of payment in cash, therefore, failed to discharge burden of proof as per Section 24 of the Act of 2002. Plot No.47/722 at Gothapatna, Bhubaneswar was purchased by Shri Das in the name of his daughter Archita Das out of his own savings. He could not produce any documentary evidence to corroborate his claim for purchase of the plot by his known sources of income. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....her account in Karnataka Bank out of the commission received from Aditya Birla Sunlife Insurance Company but no documentary evidence was produced. 10. The statement of appellant Archita Das was also recorded in whose name a landed property was registered bearing Khata No.174/45, Plot No.47/722 situated at Mouza Gothapatna having an area of 0.034dec. The said property was purchased for a consideration of Rs. 2.38 Lakhs. She stated that the entire consideration amount was paid by her father Ajay Kumar Das because she had no source of income at her own. Further, two fixed deposits maintain with Karnataka Bank, having a balance of Rs. 76,164/- and Rs. 56,594/-during the year 2008-09 were made out of the closure proceeds of previous FDs held in the name of her mother Smt. Sanghamitra Das. During that period of time, she was a school student and had no income of her own. She started earning only from the year 2017 onwards. It was found that Aditya Birla Capital, vide their letters dated 18.11.2022 and 22.11.2022 referred to 50 policies in the name of Ajay Kumar Das and his family members. Upon scrutiny of the mode of payment of the aforesaid, it was revealed that a total amount of Rs.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tachment of the properties in the hands of the appellants. Therefore, on the aforesaid ground also, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 15. The learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that income reflected in Table 'A' of the FIR is treated to be income out of known source of the appellant Ajay Kumar Das and his family members based on conjectures and surmises. The determination of the figures towards the assets, income and expenditure were made in an arbitrary manner without verification from the competent authorities and, therefore, no corroborative evidence could be given to support the determined assets disproportionate to the known sources of income. The vigilance department has calculated expenditure on the basis of gross income without any evidence. The income figured and reflected in Table 'A' to the FIR do not correspond with the figures given in Table 'B' while computing expenditure. Thus, there remains no rationale for determination of the assets disproportionate to the known sources of income. 16. It was further submitted that in the income shown in Table 'A' to the FIR, net salary of appellant Ajay Kumar Das was taken as Rs. 85,00,000/- wher....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e was supplied to substantiate the figures adopted under the income and expenditure heads. 20. Coming to the calculation part, it was submitted that at the time of acquisition of immovable properties, the total value was Rs. 96,68700/- which is below Rs. 1 Crore while the respondents claimed disproportionate assets of more than Rs. 3 Crore solely relying on the figures given by the Vigilance Department without conducting any independent investigation. The appellant Ajay Kumar Das gross income during the check period was Rs. 2,60,55,289/- and the total gross income of the appellant and his family members stood at Rs. 5,27,95,594/- duly supported by the documentary evidence but was ignored by the respondents. The prayer was made to cause interference in the impugned order based on the arguments raised above. 21. The counsel for the appellants did not raise any other argument than referred to above despite an opportunity to raise any factual or legal argument. The counsel rather shown satisfaction to his arguments and prayed for acceptance of the appeals. Arguments of counsel for the respondents: 22. The learned counsel for the respondents vehemently contested the appeals.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ant years of salary. Mere making a statement by the appellant at his own cannot be accepted as a proof. It is more so when the appellant has produced the bank statement of few years leaving others despite the burden of proof on him as per Section 24 of the Act of 2002. It is even in the light of Section 8(1) of the Act of 2002 where the noticee is called upon to disclose the source if involved in money laundering. The bank account of SBI has been submitted along with other bank accounts but scrutiny of the aforesaid would show that in other bank accounts, the appellant Ajay Kumar Das was largely receiving the income from interest and other receipts. There is no reflection of the salary for all relevant years other than the year 2010-11. 26. The counsel for the appellants has referred to the discrepancies between the FIR and the Provisional Attachment Order to indicate that income out of the salary has been shown to be Rs. 85,00,000/- while in the Provisional Attachment Order it is to be of Rs. 1,20,00,000/-. The argument has been taken for the sake of it otherwise Provisional Attachment Order makes it clear that salary income of the appellant during the check period was Rs. 85,0....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e shown by the appellant is quoted hereunder: Income Statement Sl. No. as per Vigilance FIR Source of Income Income as per Vigilance FIR Statement Name of Person Shri Ajay Kumar Das (SO) Name of Person Mrs. Sanghamitra Das Name of Person Ms. Ankita Das Name of Person Ms. Arpita Das Name of Person Ms. Archita Das Total Income of All Family Members 1. Income from Gross Salary 85,00,000 1,79,31,922 - - - - 1,79,31,922 2. GPF Withdrawal (Part/Final) 35,00,000 - - - - - - 3. House Building Loan 30,00,000 3,00,000 9,30,000 - 16,00, 000 - 28,30,000 4. Income from House Rent 8,00,000 2,40,500 19,00,000 17,16, 426 5,01,5 00 - 43,58,426 5. Income from Birla Sun Life 30,00,000 - 56,99,700 - - - 56,99,700 6. Agricultural income 2,00,000 7,72,553 4,32,820 - - - 12,05,373 7. Income from Salary of 03 daughters 25,00,000 - - 22,42, 365 43,88, 205 9,15,8 09 75,46,379 8. Loan for Education of daughters 20,00,000 20,00,000 - - - - 20,00,000 9. Inc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the income. The salary of the three daughters has been taken to be Rs. 75,46,379/- as against the salary taken by the respondents to a sum of Rs. 25,00,000/-. The burden of proof was on the appellant in the light of Section 24 of the Act of 2002 which they utterly failed. He has failed to produce documents to show monthly or yearly income of the daughters so as to take total value to be of Rs. 75,46,379/-. There is a small discrepancy in the car loan amount but not so relevant because the difference is only of Rs. 19,000/-. The appellant has taken income from other sources for the family members at a sum of Rs. 12,63,808/- without disclosure of the source and proof of its receipt since the calculation in the statement quoted above was just to demolish the case of the respondents without any material to stand. Similar is the position for income on maturity of the insurance policies. In the light of the discussion made above, we do not find any reason to cause interference in the impugned order because the total income of the appellant Ajay Kumar Das and his family was properly determined. If that would have been so, cognizance would have been taken by the predicate offence agency o....