TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (2) TMI 1746
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2. 1230/11.04.12 2 Acre 62.50Decimal Tauzi No. 413, Thana No. 146 1,66,744 Total 2,45,617 (ii) Movable property of Sanoj Yadav:- Hero Honda Super Splendor Motor Cycle bearing registration No. BR08 C6451 (Chassis No. MBLJA05EGB9F12653 & Engine No. JA05EBB9F12672) purchase value at Rs. 49,230/-. Immovable Property of Smt. Sindhu Devi, W/o Shri Sanoj Yadav: Sl. No. Sale Deed No./ date Area Description of Property Total value + Charge(in Rs. ) 1. Gift Deed No. 1896 dated 13.06.2015 2.6190 Decimal Khata No. 17 Khesra No. 345 2,02,700 2. Sale Deed No. 3782 dated 23.12.2008 250 Decimal Khata No. 95 Khesra No. 362 3,67,459 Total 5,70,159 2. As per facts of the case Inspector General of Police vide letter dated 21.03.2013 informed ED regarding Registration of following FIRs against Sh. Sanoj Yadav resident of Shankarpur, Police Station Mufassil, Dist. Munger, for commission of offences under Arms Act 1959. Sl. No. Name of the Police Station FIR No. and Date Charge Sheet No. and Date Sections Scheduled Offences under ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ished and semi-finished huge arms and ammunitions were recovered. Investigation by the Police revealed that those arms and ammunitions were being manufactured for sale to Shri Sanoj Yadav and other prospective buyers. During investigation ED recorded the statements of the suspects/accused persons and offence under Section 50 of PMLA and thereafter passed the Provisional Attachment Order No. 04/2016 dated 15.04.2016 with respect to the properties mentioned in para no.1 above. Thereafter, ED filed Original Complaint No. 616/2016 before the Adjudicating Authority for confirmation of the said properties. The Adjudicating Authority issued show cause notice to all the defendants and after going through the replies and respective arguments confirmed the Provisional Attachment Order dated 15.04.2016, vide its order dated 26.10.2016. Aggrieved by the said order, appellants filed the present appeals. 3. During the arguments, Ld. Counsel for the appellants contended that not even a single Arm, Ammunition or implements of manufacture is seized by ED from the conscious possession of the appellant Sanoj Yadav. He was never in possession of any proceeds of crime as alleged. The grand ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed that it can't be expected of a rural agriculturist from a rustic place in Bihar to maintain documentary proof of sale of milk, cow and agricultural income. ED also wrongly raised the doubts about the genuineness of the gift deed in favour of appellant Sindhu Devi. Even if there is lacuna in the execution of the Gift Deed i.e., it is attested by one 'witness and not by the two witnesses as required by law would not by itself lead to the presumption that it is acquired through the proceeds of crime or it is a camouflage to transfer the property as alleged. The other ground on which the Gift Deed has been doubted by the ED by relying on the statements of the donors that Shri Sanoj Yadav had promised them to give the alternate land, but failed to keep up the promise is also not acceptable in law for the purpose of attaching the property. The prayer is accordingly made to allow the present appeals and thereby the set aside the impugned order passed by the Adjudicating Authority. 4. On the other hand, The Ld. Counsel for the Respondent ED opposed the appeals on the ground that it is an admitted fact that appellant is facing trial in 3 criminal cases for commission of predic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Smt. Sindhu Devi against which Shri Sanoj Yadav had promised them to give another land which would be suitable for them. However, Shri Sanoj Yadav had not given them any land till that time. At page No. 3 of the Deed, they inter-alia, explained the reason of giving gift was that Smt. Sindhu Devi had won the hearts of all in the family and had spread the education in family. On being confronted with the said gift deed to explain the reason for giving the gift as mentioned therein, which are contradictory to their statements. They refused to offer any comment on it. Accordingly, ED concluded that the story of transferring immovable property by virtue of gift was created and was quite doubtful inasmuch as on the one hand, the elder brother Shri Devendra Prasad Yadav had sold one Decimal of land to his real brother at a consideration amount of Rs. 70,000/ and on the other hand, both the brothers had gifted 2.6190 Decimals of land having a value of Rs. 1,84,000/-. Circumstances were such that the same could not be true. The reason for giving the gift as mentioned in the Gift Deed was frivolous inasmuch as Smt. Sindhu Devi is not educated at all and she could only write her name. B....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that Shri Sanoj Yadav had acquired 2.50 Acres of land valued at Rs. 3,67,459/ out of the proceeds of crime committed under section 25 and 26 of the Arms Act. The scrutiny of the statement of bank accounts of Shri Sanoj Yadav did not reveal any transaction which could be relatable to the acquisition of immovable and movable properties, though they had purchased directly or indirectly by paying in cash only. It was thus rightly inferred that such transactions were undertaken to utilize the proceeds of crime available in cash with him for acquisition of properties so as to project it as untainted. The nature of proceeds of crime generated out of scheduled offences alleged to have been committed by Shri Sanoj Yadav would obviously be in cash. The fact that one property was purchased in the name of Smt. Sindhu Devi on 23.12.2008 i.e. prior to the registration of first FIR No. 52/2009 dated 05.03.2009 is also no ground to presume that the said property was not acquired out of proceeds of crime, as Sanoj Yadav might be in this business since long before he was arrested by the police in the said FIR. Therefore, I am of the considered view that all the properties acquired by the appella....