TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 1365
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g the Provisional Attachment Order dated 12.03.2024. Facts of the case: 2. It is a case where FIR No. 504/2023 was registered by EOW, Mumbai on 01.09.2023. It was for the offence under Section 34,406,409,420,120-B IPC, 1860 against Vaishnavi Kitchen, Sahyadri Refreshment, Sunil Kadam, Rajiv Salunkhe, Sujit Patker, partners of Force One Multi Services, partners of Sneha Caterers and others. Mumbai Police conducted preliminary enquiry and found that in two work orders for supply of "Khichdi" to Brihanmumbai Mahanagara Palika (BMC/MCGM) by M/s Vaishnavi Kitchen (M/s Sahyadri Refreshment) owned by Mr. Sunil Kadam and Mr. Rajiv Salunkhe and M/s Force One Multi Services, BMC/MCGM paid Rs. 5.93 Crores to M/s Sahyadri Refreshment for supply @....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g 300 gms to BMC, M/s Force One Multi Services, through its sub-contractors M/s Sneha Caterers & M/s Golden Star Banquet Hall, supplied "Khichdi" packets of lesser weight. As a result, M/s Force One Multi Services received a total amount of Rs. 8.64 Crore from BMC, of which around Rs. 4.20 Crore was paid to Sanjay Mali of M/s Sneha Caterers and around Rs. 84 Lacs to Amanpreet Keer of M/s Golden Star Banquet Hall for preparing the "Khichadi" earning a wrongful gain of around Rs. 3.64 crore. 5. M/s Sahyadri Refreshment, maintaining bank account with Vaishya Sahakari Bank Ltd. bearing no. 003110100001615, received an amount of Rs. 5,92,17,002.90 from BMC/MCGM during the period from 01.04.2020 to 31.03.2021, against work orders for supply of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd based on further investigation under the Act of 1999, it became apparent that an excess amount of Rs. 2.82 Crore is an illegitimate gain obtained by M/s Sahyadri Refreshment. 6. M/s Force One Multi Services, maintaining Bank Account No. 010110000000874 with Thane Bharat Co-op Bank, received an amount totaling to Rs. 8,63,94.985.68 from BMC/MCGM for the period 01.04.2020 to 31.03.2021, against work orders for supply of "Khichdi" packets. The examination of the said bank account of M/s Force One Multi Services revealed that an amount of Rs. 4,14,73,000.00 was transferred to M/s Sneha Caterers and an amount of Rs. 82,05,000 was transferred to M/s Golden Star Banquet Hall. The transactions were confirmed by the inward receipts in the bank....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....8,51,500/- and accordingly provisional attachment of the property was caused to that extent. 8. The role of the appellant for acquisition of proceeds of crime was found during the course of investigation. It was revealed while making inquiry of the bank account of M/s Force One Multi Services and examination of the documents. It revealed that an amount of Rs. 8,63,94,985/- was received by M/s Force One Multi Services from BMC. The part of the aforesaid amount was transferred in the bank account of the appellant Suraj Chavan. It was to the tune of Rs. 1.25 Crores. The appellant was involved in getting the work order in favour of the entities and in response, he received Rs. 1.25 Crores through the banking transaction and accordingly his p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Provisional Attachment Order has been caused in ignorance of the fact that an amount of Rs. 1.25 Crores was received by the appellant towards salary. The Adjudicating Authority failed to consider the aforesaid aspect of the matter while passing the impugned order adverse to the appellant. The salary amount could not have been considered to be the proceeds of crime but ignoring the aforesaid fact, the impugned order has been passed. 12. The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that appellant had taken loan from the accused. The fact aforesaid has also not been considered by the Adjudicating Authority while confirming the Provisional Attachment Order. On the aforesaid ground also, the impugned order deserves to be set a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the amount of salary and alternatively transfer of the amount as loan. The counsel for the appellant was called upon to show appointment order to make out a case for receipt of salary. The counsel failed to refer any appointment order so as to prove working of the appellant on salary. The counsel further failed to clarify as to whether one would receive salary of Rs. 1.25 Crores in one go. Thus, receipt of the amount towards salary remains for the sake of it. 18. It was further stated that the amount aforesaid was received towards the loan by the appellant. The appellant was called upon to show a loan document. The learned counsel for the appellant failed to show loan document to prove the case. It is coupled with the fact that whenev....