TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 1345
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., Government of India, New Delhi. The Ld. Adjudicating Authority (AA) imposed the penalty of Rs. 15,00,000/- on the Appellant for the contraventions of Section 3(a) of Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (FEMA), read with Section 4 of FEMA, vide the Impugned Order. The Appellant has made pre-deposit of Rs. 1.5 lakhs of the penalty amount in compliance to the Order dated 06.07.2018 of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in CRL. A. 422/2016 and Crl. M.A. No. 7076/2016. 2. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant stated that the Appellant Shri Rohit Sehgal, S/o Shri K.I.L Sehgal, P.O. S-444, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi was working as Area Manager of Indian Airlines Ltd., at Kuwait during the period 26.06.2000 to 22.06.2003. After his return to India on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ey in question was given by an NRI and held on behalf of one Shri Naresh Kumar Jain. He further stated that Smt. Kailash Sehgal died on 16.07.2009. Ld. Counsel pleaded that that Impugned Order has been issued with non-application of mind as US $ 1.28 Lakhs was obtained from a legal legitimate source based out of India. Ld. Counsel stated that Reserve Bank of India (RBI) vide its Letter No. DAPM CO RIA 7490/07.50.01/2008- 2009 dated 30.12.2008, has further clarified the legal position as follows: - "In terms of Section 6(4) of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999, a person resident in India may hold, own, transfer, invest in foreign currency, foreign security or any immovable property situated outside India if such currency, se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he fund belongs to Shri Naresh Kumar Jain, it was not open to the Appellant to invest fund in his own name. Ld. Counsel pleaded that dropping of charges under the Regulation does not mean that the Ld. AA was precluded from imposing penalty for contravention of Section 3(a) and Section 4 of FEMA. Ld. Counsel therefore pleaded to dismiss the Appeal. 5. We have considered the rival submissions and the material on record. We find that the fact of acquisition of US $ 1.28 lakhs abroad by the Appellant, while working as an Area Manager of Indian Airline Ltd. in Kuwait between 26.06.2000 and 22.06.2003 is not disputed. He has been charged under FEMA for transferring such funds to other entities abroad after his return to India on 23.06.2003. Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... person when he was resident outside India. The documents available in this case show that the money did not relate to salary earned by Shri Rohit Sehgal, when he was a non-resident. The statement of account of Shri Rohit Sehgal held with Gulf Bank, Kuwait shows a large number of cash deposits ranging from 900 Kuwaiti Dinars to 4000 Kuwaiti Dinars across a period of 3 years. 27. Shri Sehgal has submitted vide his reply dated 11th December, 2008 that his friend Shri Naresh Kumar Jain "invested" the money. The money was given "in cash" and "in parts". It is also claimed that the money was to be used for opening a placement bureau in India. 28. The letter and affidavit given by Shri Naresh Jain are of a period subsequent to t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r Jain, son of Shri Abhey Ram Jain is a known Hawala dealer and a suspected money launderer, and has been arrested by Dubai Police in 2007, as well as arrested in India. It is claimed that due to the Gulf War Shri Naresh Jain did not want to continue the investment. However, information in public domain shows that Gulf War got over in April, 2003 whereas the money was sent to Singapore in August, 2003. It may be added here, that if the money in question really belonged to Shri Naresh Jain, and it had really been received for investment in a placement bureau In India, it should have been returned to Shri Naresh Jain. On the other hand it was sent to Shri Mahesh Kumar Patodia. The role of Mahesh Kumar Patodia and his hawala business in India ....