TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (12) TMI 1710
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Mode of payment of the property Name of the owner and relation with Mandeep Singh S/o Sh. Naginder Singh (D-5) 1. Land 20K, 7 M at Vill. Malana vide vasika no.1511 dated 23.11.2011 6,34,936 Cash Gursharandeep Singh (D-8) Son 2. Land at 22 K, 16.5 M Vill Malana vide vasika no. 1520 dated 25.11.2011 7,13,000 Cash Gursharandeep Singh (D-8) Son 3. Land 22 K, 16.5 M at Vill. Malana vide vasika no. 1858 dated 09.01.2012 7,14,000 Cash Gursharandeep Singh (D-8) Son 4. Land 58 K at Vill. Malana vide vasika no. 5590 dated 27.03.2012 17,00,000 Cash Gursharandeep Singh (D-8) Son 5. Land 24 K at Vill. Malana vide vasika no. 1510 dated 23.11.2011 7,50,000 Cash Navjot Singh (D-7) Son 6. Land 14 K5 M at Village Saidpur vide vasika No 1509 dated 23.11.2011 4,45,312 Cash Navjot Singh (D-7) Son 7. Land 18 K 15 M at Village Malana vide vaika No. 1521 dated 25. 11.2011 5,86,000 Cash Navjot Singh (D-7) Son 8. Land 18 K 15M M at Village Malana vide vasika No. 1859 dated 09.01.2012 5,86,000 Cash Navjot Singh (D-7) Son 9. Land 10K 10 M at Vill. Malana vide vasika no. 216 dated ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Maya Devi (D-6) Wife 27. Land 17 K 16 M at Vill. Manala vide vasika no.41 dated 18.06.2012 5,57,000 Cash Maya Devi (D-6) Wife 28. Land 21 K 6.5 M at Vill. Manala vide vasika no. 1199 dated 21.09.2012 6,67,000 Cash Maya Devi (D-6) Wife 29. Land 19 K 16 M at Vill. Manala vide vasika no.1465 dated 05.11.2012 7,42,500 By cheque No.209874 and 138971 Maya Devi (D-6) Wife 30. Land 20 K5 M 3 Sarsai at Vill. Manala vide vasika no. 1483 dated 08.11.2012 7,62,000 By cheque No.209874 and 138971 Maya Devi (D-6) Wife 31. Land 18 K 9 M at Vill. Manala vide vasika no. 11 dated 03.04.2013 17,02,000 Cash Maya Devi (D-6) Wife 32. Land 16 K 2 M at Vill. Manala vide vasika no. 654 dated 18.07.2013 8,02,000 Cash Maya Devi (D-6) Wife 33. Land 2 K 10 M at Vill. Hasanpur vide vasika no. 1752 dated 29.08.2013 3,92,000 Cash Maya Devi (D-6) Wife Total value as per deeds= 2,62,46,148 TABLE II S. No. Description of immovable property Description of land on which building of hotels constructed Owner of the land Valuation of the immovable property as asse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mily members have earned total income of Rs. 4,13,86,471/- from all declared lawful sources of income, but have spent sum of Rs. 9,55,07,490/- and accordingly, he spent Rs. 5,41,21,019/- in excess (130% excess), of all sources of income. This expenditure includes Rs. 3,01,24,555/- spent on purchase of agricultural lands in the name of his wife & sons. He also spent crores of rupees gathered through corrupt means in Ashiana Inn Ltd. And Hotel Marc Royale, situated at Dhakoli, Zirakpur, in connivance with Sh. Avtar Singh and his father Sh. Naginder Singh (since deceased). Sh. Mandeep Singh also got executed a WILL by his father Sh. Naginder Singh in his favour. During the investigation of the said case by Vigilance Bureau, Punjab, the information was sent to Enforcement Directorate and accordingly ED registered the ECIR/JLZO/01/2016 on 18.02.2016 for conducting investigation under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, as the said offences were covered under the Scheduled Offences. During the investigation respondent ED recorded the statement of the suspects and other persons under Section 50 of PMLA as mentioned in details in para 4 of the impugned order. On the basis of ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....confirmation of the attached properties, along with the relied upon documents. On the basis of materials on record the Adjudicating Authority formed the reasonable belief, and accordingly, issued Show Cause Notice dated 01.02.2018 to the defendants for filing their respective replies. After going through the replies of the defendants and the rejoinders and materials on record, the Adjudicating Authority vide Order dated 08.06.2018, confirmed the PAO No.04/2017 dated 22.12.2017. Aggrieved by the same appellants filed the present appeals no. 2429, 2411, 2446 and 2464/JL/2018. Thereafter, the additional property of appellant Mandeep Singh i.e. SCO no.2, Sector-10D, Chandigarh, was also attached by ED vide PAO No.03/2020 dated 29.06.2020, which was also confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority vide order dated 23.12.2020 in Original Complaint No. 1323/2020. Aggrieved by the same appellant Mandeep Singh filed another appeal no. 3889/JL/2021. 3. We have heard the arguments submitted by the appellant Sh. Mandeep Singh on his behalf and on behalf of his family members. The said arguments were controverted by the Ld. counsel for the respondent ED in verbatim to its replies.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ome. Further, in absence of any cogent explanation, the huge cash deposits prima facie appears to be tainted money. The investigation agency has considered all the aspects during investigation of the disproportionate asset case to the known sources of income and the consequent proceeds of crime for the check period. 5. Sh. Mandeep Singh also stressed that he has already informed his department regarding the purchase of properties, as per conduct rules, but Department never raised any objection to the purchase of the properties or raised doubt about the acquisition of the same. The said properties were purchased out of the legitimate sources of income and were duly explained during the investigation of the case conducted by Vigilance Department and respondent ED. He further stressed that the end of the check period is taken as 31.03.2014, but investigation agency has taken the expenditure of Rs. 1.17 crores for renovation of House no. 147-A, Sector B-8, Chandigarh. He pointed out that Chartered Accountant (CA) verification report clearly reflects the expenditure of only Rs. 40 lakhs up to 31.03.2014 and hence the excess expenditure of Rs. 77 lakhs added by the investigation ag....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ture, it needs to be added under the head of expenditure, when the income of all the family members is already clubbed as Rs. 4,13,86,471/-. Therefore, the withdrawal of any amount from the bank account for the purpose of acquisition of any assets loses its relevance, as it will amount to giving double benefit, after giving benefit of income. 8. Appellant Sh. Mandeep Singh argued that Smt. Maya Devi, Sh. Navjot Singh and Sh. Gursharandeep Singh purchased land for a sum of Rs. 3.01 crores and out of the said amount of Rs. 39 lakhs were paid towards registration, stamp paper and Government charges etc. and hence sum of Rs. 39 lakhs needs to be excluded, as the net market value of the said land is only Rs. 2.62 crores, but not as Rs. 3.01 crores. We do not agree with the contention of the appellants in this regard as the value of assets includes the sale consideration amount plus registration charges and other miscellaneous expenses and the same cannot be excluded to get the benefit of Rs. 39 lakhs, as otherwise the said amount will be added under the head "expenses". 9. Appellant Sh. Mandeep Singh further submitted that sum of Rs. 11.88 lakhs and Rs. 6.5 lakhs were wrongly a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ease the properties. It is the duty of the Enforcement Directorate to satisfy only the three conditions for attaching the properties: i) Commission of predicate offence by the accused persons; ii) The generation of proceeds of crime and the quantum of the same; iii) The availability of the proceeds of crime in the hands of the accused persons and their associates. Respondent ED is empowered to attach the properties as per provisions laid down in PMLA, 2002, till the conclusion of investigation and trial. In case of conviction of the accused persons in the predicate offence investigated by police, as well as prosecution complaint under PMLA, 2002, filed by ED, the said attached properties can be confiscated to the Central Govt. as per procedure laid down in Section 8(5) to 8(8) of PMLA, 2002, after consideration of the claims of genuine persons against the said properties like bank, secured creditors etc. if any. The contention of the appellant that the Vigilance Department conducted unfair and politically motivated investigation to implead the appellant Sh. Mandeep Singh as reflected in the report of Justice (Rtd.) M. S. Gill Commission is also no g....