TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 918
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....her served nor provided with an opportunity of hearing by the Adjudicating Authority before passing the Attachment Order for "debit" freeze of the accounts of the Appellant. The Appellant being an infrastructure company obtained a license bearing No. 281/2007 from the Directorate of Town and Country Planning, State Government of Haryana ("DTCP") enabling it to develop an IT Park Project. As per the terms of the said license the Appellant provided a bank guarantee to DTCP secured by way of lien marked on the fixed deposit. As such, DTCP through the Bank had a charge/prior claim on the fixed deposit and the bank guarantee could either be renewed or encashed in favour of DTCP. Taking over of the fixed deposits by the Respondent obligated the bank to dishonour the bank guarantee, resulting in irreparable injury. The facts of the present case did not warrant such a harsh action. The Respondent Directorate of Enforcement exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 8(4) of PMLA by ordering and taking over of physical possession of the fixed deposit accounts of the Appellant while the law only mandates symbolic possession. 3. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant stated that the Appellant had prefe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... acres at Faridabad, Haryana was purchased by DIPL from M/s Kirloskar Pneumatic Company Ltd. at the total consideration of Rs. 1903.45 lakhs by way of the two sale deeds dated 20.09.2006. The initial funds required for the purchase of the Land were arranged by the erstwhile promoters (as named above) and their business associates and group companies namely Mr. Dinesh Jain, M/s Pegasus Developers Pvt. Ltd., Sparsh Builders Pvt. Ltd. and Sparsh Build Well Pvt. Ltd. Accordingly, Bank Guarantee No. 2007/40 for Rs. 79.69 lakhs was issued by the Corporation Bank on behalf of DIPL in favour of DTCP. The said Bank Guarantee was issued against the Fixed Deposit, bearing No. 530401003505783, maintained by DIPL. The said Bank Guarantee was required to be renewed from time to time till completion of the Project. As per the instructions issued to the bank, if the Bank Guarantee was not renewed, it could only be encashed in favour of the beneficiary i.e. DTCP. It was clarified that DIPL was acquired by Realtech Infrastructure Ltd. to the extent of 36% of the shareholding, by BNB Constructions Pvt. Ltd. to the extent of 10% and by Shri Atul Bansal, Managing Director of ABW to the extent of 54% of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ereas sale proceeds of above flats and commercial shops is to the tune of Rs. 434.680 crores. Thus, company gained a profit of Rs. 78 crores approximately. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed Order dated 12.03.2018 in connection with the aforesaid matter. The relevant paras of the order are reproduced below: "A. The decisions dated 24.08.2007 and 29.01.2010 referred to hereinabove are set aside as being brought about by mala fide exercise of power. In our considered view, those decisions were clear case of fraud on power and as such are annulled. B. The decision dated 24.08.2007 was taken when the matters were already posted for pronouncement of the award on 26.08.2007. Since all the antecedent stages and steps prior thereto were properly and validly undertaken, and since the decision dated 24.08.2007 has been held by us to be an exercise of fraud on power, it is directed that an Award is deemed to have been passed on 26.08.2007 in respect of lands (i) which were covered by declaration under Section 6 in the present case and (ii) which were transferred by the landholders during the period 27.08.2004 till 29.01.2010. The lands which were not transferred b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 8. Ld. Counsel further stated that consequently, a letter bearing No. ECIR/CDZO/04/2015/4345 dated 29.05.2018 was issued to the Branch Manager, Corporation Bank, Vasant Vihar Branch, New Delhi under which he was requested to "Debit Freeze" the operations of the Bank Accounts of the Appellant, involving FDRs and balances. 9. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent pleaded that the Directors/ Authorized signatories Sh. Vijay Gupta and Sh. Yogesh Gupta along with other Directors of M/s Seriatim Land & Housing Pvt. Ltd. and Dove Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. were summoned to depose themselves regarding the above said companies and deposits thereof, but they did not appear. Ld. Counsel stated that it has been observed in the Impugned Order that an FIR dated 12.08.2015 was registered with Police Station Manesar, Gurgaon u/s 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the IPC and section 13 of the PC Act regarding allegation that farmers and other owners of 3 villages including Manesar had land measuring 688 acres but were compelled to sell to private persons at throw away prices under the threat of acquisition by the Government. Threat was played by politicians, government officers and their agents by e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....72 Lakhs- Labelled F Current Account 510101000604797 having 0.62 Lakh- Labelled G Ld. Counsel stated that it is mentioned in the aforesaid Order that the Directors of the Appellant Company are S/Shri Vijay Gupta, Amit Gupta, Rajeev Behal, Yogesh Gupta, Atul Bansal, Ranjan Gupta, Vijay Kumar Grover and Smt. Sona Bansal. She further stated that it is also mentioned in the Order that the authorized signatory were S/Shri Atul Bansal and Yogesh Gupta. Ld. Counsel stated that the Order dated 31.05.2022 has allowed confiscation of all properties mentioned in Table-I, Table-II and Table-III including the two bank accounts of the Appellant Company. Ld. Special Judge did not confiscate the Fixed Deposit Labelled-F, because of the interim order dated 21.05.2019 of this Tribunal, whereby direction of status-quo was given in favour of the Appellant. Ld. Counsel argued that in view of the language and tenor confiscation Order under Section 8(7) of PMLA issued by the Ld. Special Judge under PMLA at Panchkula on 31.05.2022, the argument by the Appellant that the freezing of the Fixed Deposit of Rs. 91.72 Lakhs should be set aside, cannot be sustained. Ld. Counsel therefore pleaded to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... property; (f) examine on oath any person, who is found to be in possession or control of any record or property, in respect of all matters relevant for the purposes of any investigation under this Act. (1A) Where it is not practicable to seize such record or property, the officer authorised under sub-section (1), may make an order to freeze such property whereupon the property shall not be transferred or otherwise dealt with, except with the prior permission of the officer making such order, and a copy of such order shall be served on the person concerned: Provided that if, at any time before its confiscation under sub-section (5) or sub-section (7) of section 8 or section 58B or sub-section (2A) of section 60, it becomes practical to seize a frozen property, the officer authorised under sub-section (1) may seize such property. 20. Retention of property.-(1) Where any property has been seized under section 17 or section 18 or frozen under sub-section (1A) of section 17 and the officer authorised by the Director in this behalf has, on the basis of material in his possession, reason to believe (the reason for such belief to be recorded by him in w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....017. The seizure effected from various premises on 25.05.2017 were subject matter of another OA No. 107/2017 which was confirmed by the Competent Adjudicating Authority vide Order dated 25.10.2017. Consequent to the search the Assistant General Manager of then Corporation Bank caused it appearance on 29.05.2018 and reported on the three accounts of the Appellant Company. On the very same date the Respondent Directorate vide Letter No. ECIR/CDZO/04/2015/4345 requested to debit freeze the operations of the three bank accounts of the Appellant Company, as well as those of the other suspected companies. The debit freeze was allowed to be retained by the Ld. AA vide the Impugned Order. The Ld. AA considered all the material before him, including the fact that FIR had been registered initially by Haryana Police and subsequently by CBI to investigate how the farmers and land owners had been compelled to sell their land to private person at throw away prices under the threat of 'acquisition by the Government'. Ld. AA has noted that during the investigation total proceeds of crime which was found in the hands of Shri Atul Bansal and Group Companies was Rs. 160,18,21,991/-. Ld. AA has also n....