TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 584
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n made to the order dated 30.04.2024 passed by the Adjudicating Authority confirming the Provisional Attachment Order dated 29.11.2023. 2. It is a case where an FIR was registered on the direction of the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench in Writ Petition No.12802/2011 dated 31.01.2014. It was on the allegation of misuse and embezzlement of funds as well as the abuse of power, in implementing Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS). After registration of the FIR pursuant to the direction of the High Court, eight charge sheets were filed by the CBI-ACB, Lucknow. The investigation revealed the following facts: 3. The National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (NREGS) was introduced in District Balrampur duri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ified districts. 10. The appellant Bhagwati Prasad Verma was named in six charge sheets filed from time to time. The provisional attachment of his wife's properties was caused for the value of Rs. 97,18,022/-. It is finding involvement of the appellant Bhagwati Prasad Verma in commission of offence though the properties exist in the name of his wife. The appellants are aggrieved by the impugned order and raised following arguments. Arguments of counsel for the appellants: 11. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the crime period was between the year 2007 to 2010, while the properties under provisional attachment were purchased either prior to crime period or subsequent thereto. These properties have no nexus with t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oduced by the respondents to prove the allegation. As against the aforesaid, the appellants remained successful to disclose the source of income to acquire the properties, which had been ignored by the respondents. The learned counsel for the appellants made a specific reference of the agriculture land in possession of the appellant Smt. Sukhrani to emphasize about her income out of those lands which has been ignored by the Adjudicating Authority. In view of the above also, a prayer was made to interfere in the impugned order. 14. The learned counsel for the appellants did not raise any other argument than referred to above. It is despite an opportunity given by the Tribunal to raise any other legal or factual issue. The learned counsel ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n hereunder: Sr. No. Type/Address Area and purchase price including stamp duty (as stated in statements u/s. 50 of PMLA, 2002 Registry No. and year of purchase/ Date of Registry Area (as per sale purchase deed) Purchase price (excluding stamp duty) 1. Plot no. 1-B admeasuring 422.86 square meters situated in Mohibullapur, Ward- Faizullaganj, District- Lucknow and the house constructed on it. (i) Plot-422.86 square meters purchased for Rs. 8,82,000/- (ii) House and shops constructed on plot at the cost of Rs. 69,92,022/- (i+ii=Rs.77,92,022/- ) 8578/2006 12.10.2006 422.86 square meters Rs.77,92,022/- (to the tune of Rs. 68,32,022/-) 2. Agricultural Land located at Village Khetausa, P.S.- Hyderabad, Te....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gain to the accused. At this stage, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that in the impugned order, a reference has been made to the investigation by CBI to be pending to find out specific gain out of the fraud. It was to submit that quantification of the gain by each accused has not been determined. We find that subsequent to the charge sheet, the investigation was caused by the respondents on recording the ECIR and therein the statements of the appellants were also recorded. Therefore, reference of the charge sheet in the proceedings under the Act of 2002 cannot be said to be of any relevance. It is coupled with the fact that if the appellant was not involved in commission of crime and he has not acquired any proceeds, source....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aced on record if she was earning an amount requiring income tax return. In view of the facts given above, we are unable to accept the argument that the proceeds in the hands of the appellants have not been quantified or source declared by them has been ignored, rather source remained without any proof despite mandate of Section 24 of the Act of 2002, where a presumption of money laundering exists and reverse burden lies on the accused. 20. We may now come to the crime period to analyze the issue further. The crime period in the case is said to be from the year 2007 to 2010 and one property was purchased prior to the aforesaid while others subsequent to it. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the properties acquired by....