TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 239
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e existence of his bank accounts outside India, particularly with UBS AG, Zurich, Switzerland and also certain transfer of funds from Sarasin Bank, Switzerland. 3. Investigations revealed that Hassan Ali Khan had acquired multiple passports from various passport authorities. In this connection, the Worli Police, Pune Police, the Hyderabad Police and the Patna Police registered FIRs against Hassan Ali Khan and subsequently, charge sheeted him. 4. Since the facts of the case revealed commission of offences which constituted scheduled offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) initiated investigations under the provisions of the PMLA, 2002 by registering an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR/02/MZO/2007 on 08.01.2007). Investigations were also conducted under the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 as a result of which, Show Cause Notices were issued to Hassan Ali Khan for violation of Section 3(a) and Section 4 of Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 for dealing in, for acquiring and holding the foreign exchange amount equivalent to Indian Rs. 36,000 crores. 5. During the course of investigations, Letters....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nder 17(4) of the PMLA, seeking the retention of the said documents and devices. The said O.A. was allowed by the Ld. AA. 10. Subsequently, upon an appeal being filed by the appellants herein, this Appellate Tribunal, vide order dated 21.05.2019, allowed the said appeal with a direction to ED to de-freeze the property for reasons discussed in greater detail in para 14 below. 11. Upon appeal by the Directorate against the said order of the Appellate Tribunal, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, vide order dated 21.11.2025, set aside the order of this Tribunal with a direction to consider the appeals afresh. This order is in compliance of the order of the Delhi High Court remanding the matter back to consider the appeal afresh. Arguments on behalf of the appellant 12. The appellants in their submissions, have firstly reiterated the underlying facts of the case. Since, the same have already been discussed in adequate detail in paragraphs 2 to 9 of this Order, the same are not repeated here. 13. Ld. Counsel for the appellant raised mainly the following arguments. It is firstly argued that the cash seized by the Respondent Directorate on the day of search was out of property....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ased on the above arguments, it is prayed on behalf of the appellant that the present appeal be allowed and the order of the Ld. AA be set aside. Arguments on behalf of the respondent 18. Ld. Counsel for the respondent strongly opposed the submissions made on behalf of the appellant. 19. He firstly, referred to para-42 of the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, wherein, the Hon'ble High Court has observed that subsequent filing of supplementary complaint has no relevance in the present context and would not cause any adverse impact upon search proceedings. 20. Secondly, he placed reliance upon the finding in paragraphs 16 to 21 of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Deputy Director, ED v. Amlendu Pandey through LR, Misc. Appeal (PMLA) 8/2022, wherein it was stated that: "16. However, during the pendency of the aforesaid appeal before the learned Appellate Tribunal, Mr. Amlendu Pandey died on 25.05.2017 and his LR i.e. his daughter was impleaded in appeal proceedings on 19.12.2017. 17. Learned Appellate Tribunal, PMLA, vide judgment dated 21.05.2019, has allowed the appeal, with direction to de-freeze the abovesaid property of respondent. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t cash amounting to Rs. 26.30 lakh was seized by the Respondent Directorate on the day of search. The case of the appellant to justify the availability of cash is that it was from an intended property transaction whereby an agreement to sell was entered into with one Mrs. Indu Devi for sale consideration of 85 lakhs. Initially, an agreement was entered into by the appellant and his brother (being co-owners of the property) with the said Mrs. Indu Devi and an advance of Rs. 1,00,001/- was received. However, as Mrs. Indu Devi failed to arrange the remaining cash, the agreement was cancelled and the advance was forfeited. Subsequently, under an understanding between the appellant his brother, the said property fell to the exclusive share of the present appellant. Thereafter, a fresh agreement to sale was signed with the same Mrs. Indu Devi for an enhanced consideration of Rs. 1,01,00,001/- and an advance of Rs. 25 lakh was received by the appellant. In support of the contentions, copies of two documents (agreements to sell dated 09.10.2014 and 01.02.2016) executed between Sh. Amalendu Kumar Pandey and Smt. Indu Devi have been placed on record. In this regard, I have perused the statem....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h Pandey and Sh. Amit Gupta in June 2014. The claim is incorrect on several counts even if the two documents are taken at face value. Firstly, the contention of appellant now is that the amount was received as a consequence of the second agreement to sell entered into in 2016, and not out of the first agreement to sell executed in 2014 in which the stated advance amount is only to the extent of Rs. 1,00,000/-. Secondly, the copies of both the agreements filed show that the same have been signed by the appellant himself and not by his brother, contrary to claim made in the statement recorded on the date of search Considering all these discrepancies, the explanation advanced on behalf of the appellant for the cash found is hereby rejected and the order of the Ld. AA confirming the retention thereof is upheld. 26. The next contention of the appellant is that there was no 'reason to believe' either under Section 17 or under Section 8. Ld. Counsel for the appellant relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in M/s Mahanivesh Oils & Foods Pvt. Ltd. versus Directorate of Enforcement, W.P. (C) 1925/2014, wherein it was held that mere mechanical recording of reasons is not su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in section 5(1). The AA is not required u/s 8(1) to record reasons, and, on the basis of the complaint filed by the initial authority u/s 5(5), can proceed with the process on the basis of subjective satisfaction. I also find that in the impugned order after narrating the background facts and the allegations against the accused persons, Ld. AA has recorded in the impugned order (refer page 13 of 36) that "Consequent upon the filing of application u/s 17(4) by the Assistant Director, ED, Mumbai, the matter was thoroughly examined by the authority and notice were issued to all defendants to file their reply by a specific date." In light of these facts as well as the legal position as explained above, I do not find any merit in this contention of the appellant either. 29. Finally, it is strongly contended on behalf of the appellant that the original appellant, Sh. Amlendu Pandey, died on 25.05.2017, and was substituted by his daughter, Dr. Shivani Pandey in the present appeal. However, even subsequent to his death, Respondent has filed the prosecution complaint under the PMLA before the Special Court, Mumbai. It is contended that the said prosecution complaint has no legs to stand ....