TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (6) TMI 182
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... retention of the cash and articles seized at the time of search of premises on 24.11.2023. 2. The search was conducted at many places and premises of different persons which includes the appellant at his residence at A-2, 101, 3rd Floor Janakpuri, New Delhi. During the course of search, the documents, apart from Indian Currency Notes of Rs. 67,50,000/- were found and seized. Immediately after seizure of the documents and the currency notes, apart from mobile phone and the passport, the competent authority sent an original application to the Adjudicating Authority to seek retention of the seized articles and the cash. The Adjudicating Authority, after considering the rival submissions of the parties, ordered for retention of the seized c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rdingly after preparation of Punchnama, seizure of cash was caused. Since an order for retention has been passed by the Adjudicating Authority, this appeal has been preferred by the appellant. 5. I have made reference of FIR against M/s Shine City Infra Project Pvt. Ltd., Rashid Naseem, Managing Director of the company, Asif Naseem, Director of the company along with many others in the opening paras. The main allegation was about cheating the general public for the investment involving their hard-earned money with the promise to return the amount with high returns. The cheques were also issued but were not honoured, rather dishonoured by the bank and thereby the general public was cheated by the company and its directors. 6. So far as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n-supply of relied upon documents is erroneous. 9. I have gone through the record and find that number of punchnamas were the relied upon documents and have been made part of the proceedings, copies of which were given to the appellant. When no other document was relied upon by the respondents, there was no question to supply a copy of it. In fact, if the appellant was desirous of getting copies of other documents, he could have made an application under Section 21(2) of the Act of 2002. However, no such application was preferred by the appellant to secure the documents and allegations have now been made against the respondents for non-supply of the RUDs though it is not found proved, rather relied upon documents were supplied which were....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd data, etc. In the light of the above, I do not find any illegality in the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority. 12. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that appellant has no nexus with the commission of crime and, therefore, there was no reason to retain the seized cash and the articles thus the impugned order should be quashed. The argument aforesaid has been contested by the respondents. It is submitted that the prosecution complaint naming the appellant as an accused has already been filed on 21.04.2026. The appellant has been arrayed as an accused at Item No.2. In the prosecution complaint, confiscation of Rs. 67,50,000/- has been sought. In view of the above situation, the retention of the articles gets justifie....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appellant can be created by anyone at any time. The disclosure of source by producing such documents cannot be accepted, thus the appellant failed to substantiate the source for possession of the cash. In view of the above also, the respondents were justified to pray for dismissal of the appeal. 16. The counsel for the appellant had made a reference of the rejoinder submitted before the Adjudicating Authority but was not accepted. The perusal of the record shows that when the matter was kept for final hearing, the appellant tried to produce the documents without specifying the provision under which he can do so. Thus, it is not that any principle of law was violated so as the instructions, rather finding appellant's involvement in the c....