TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 524
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by ED in PAO No. 01/2012 dated 25.09.2012 were confirmed:- S. No. Description of the property Value in Rs. Cr. 1. Villa Plot No. B-44 measuring 1458 sq. yds at Guchibowili, Distt. Ranga Reddy, Hyderabad (Boulder Hills) at S.no.16 (Note: Claimed by Chamundeshwarnath) 3.64 2. Villa Plot No. B 46 measuring 1486 sq. yds at Guchibowili, Distt. Ranga Reddy, Hyderabad (Boulder Hills) at S.no.14 (Note: Claimed by Bijay K. Mandhani) 3.71 3. Villa Plot No. A 11 measuring 1192 sq. yds at Guchibowili, Distt. Ranga Reddy, Hyderabad (Boulder Hills) at S.no.15 (Note: Claimed by K. Lalitha) 2.98 4. Villa Plot No. B 30 measuring 1545 sq. yds at Guchibowili, Distt. Ranga Reddy, Hyderabad (Boulder Hills) at S.no.17 (Note: Claimed by K. Ramcharan Tej) 3.86 Facts of the case 2. As per the facts of the case, FIR No. RC-35-2011-A-0018 dated 17.08.2011 was registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation, Hyderabad, against Sh. BP Acharya, IAS, Chairman & MD of Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation (herein after called referred as APIIC); M/s Emaar Properties PJSC, Dubai; M/s Emaar Hills Township Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad; unknown officials of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o M/s Emaar MGF Land Ltd. (EMGF in short). Sri Shravan Gupta and Sri Siddhartha Gupta were the initial Directors of the company. 8. Development Agreement dated 03.11.2006 executed between EHTPL and EMGF. As per clause 2.8.1 of the agreement, the Developer i.e. EMGF was required to undertake the entire development and bear all the cost of the project, for which Developer (EMGF) was entitled to 75% of the gross revenue in the total covered and uncovered built up area, including common areas and common facilities either through the sale and/or lease proceeds. 9. Subsequently, a Development Agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney (GPA) was executed between EHTPL and EMGF on 25.07.2007, sharing the gross revenue between EMGF and EHTPL in the ratio of 75:25 on the sale and lease proceeds. Subsequently an Addendum to Development Agreement & GPA dated 23.07.2008 was executed reducing revenue sharing pattern from 75:25 to 95:5. 10. An agency agreement dated 29.01.2005 was entered by M/s Emaar Properties PJSC, Dubai and M/s Stylish Holmes Real Estates Pvt. Ltd., 100 villa plots to be sold @ Rs. 5,000/- per Sq. Yd., and the remaining Villa Plots (beyond 100) were to be sold at the pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing, but a clandestine arrangement in furtherance of the criminal conspiracy by the Developer to dispose-off the project land, without developing the same, and thereby, deprive APIIC from its legitimate revenue share from the developed land. 15. APIIC conveyed 258.36 acres of land in favour of EHTPL vide conveyance deed dt. 28.12.2005 for development of the integrated project. EHTPL executed a Development Agreement dt. 03.11.2006 with EMGF, inducting it as a Co-Developer. But EHTPL and M/s Stylish Holmes Real Estates Pvt. Ltd., booked as many as 43 villa plots till 27.12.2005 i.e. even before execution of Conveyance Deed dated 28.12.2005 by APIIC in favour of EHTPL. 16. The 31 villa plots (excluding three model villas) were sold by EHTPL and EMGF at the documented rate of Rs. 5000/- per sq. yd., though the prevalent market rates were much higher. M/s Stylish Holmes Real Estates Pvt. Ltd. was not involved in the sale of these 31 villas and villa plots. 17. Investigation has revealed that 13 villa plots, including three model villas (constructed at Plot No's: A-70, A-71 & A-73) were sold by EHTPL and EMGF directly to the buyers. During investigation, one of the above sai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....con Pvt. Ltd. 1138 5,69,000/- 20. However, EMGF issued cancellation letters dated 04.10.2010, though the amount of initial deposit was received from these companies still remain with EMGF. The intention of EMGF behind booking 18 plots in the name of the companies incorporated/acquired in the name of their employees, was to block the villa plots @ Rs. 5000/- per Sq. Yd. and subsequently for resale at premium rates. Since, APIIC was entitled for a revenue share from the consideration received from first sale of villa plots and not from the resale. 21. Thus, investigation revealed the existence of a very well-knit criminal conspiracy on the part of EMGF, and others to deprive APIIC of its lawful revenue share, by booking villa plots @ Rs. 5000/- per Sq. Yd. The criminal intent of EMGF is also evident from the fact that villa plots were sold to Sri Rahul Raju @ Rs. 23,198/- per Sq. Yd., and two other buyers @ Rs. 25,000/- per Sq. Yd. However, in furtherance of the conspiracy the amounts of Rs. 2,80,40,000/- and Rs. 4,05,20,000/-collected from the two villa plot buyers in cash as part of sale consideration of the villa plots allotted to them, have not been accounted for in t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2.18 14.23 24.14 -2.88 37.67 Revised PBT -12.12 2.87 30.38 32.04 11.24 64.41 Cash Component (M/s Stylish Holmes) From 2005 to 2010 96.02 Cash Component (M/s Emaar MGF Land Ltd.) From 2008 to 2010 6.86 Total 167.29 The investigation by CBI revealed that EMGF and M/s Emaar Properties PJSC, Dubai obtained undue pecuniary advantage of Rs. 167.29 Crores. 24. CBI also filed supplementary charge sheet on 23.04.2012. The said supplementary charge sheet reveals that on reference of Sri Koneru Rajendra Prasad, M/s Emaar Properties PJSC, Dubai, appointed M/s Stylish Holmes & Real Estates Pvt. Ltd. (M/s Stylish Holmes in short) represented by Sri Tummala Ranga Rao as its sole agent for marketing the plots and Residential units constructed in the land integrated project on 29.01.2005, without consulting APIIC. 25. The first 100 plots were to be sold by the agent M/s Stylish Holmes at an agreed price of Rs. 5000/- per sq. yd. and the balance plots were to be sold at prevailing market rates as determined by EHTPL. As per the agency agreement, M/s Stylish Holmes can collect additi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ived (Rs.) 1. M/s Amydale Info Tech Pvt. Ltd. 3,05,00,000 2. M/s Aramid Textiles Pvt. Ltd. 5,75,00,000 3. M/s Bloomery Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd. 3,40,00,000 4. M/s Bluesky Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. 3,60,00,000 5. M/s Chakri Industries Pvt. Ltd. 1,15,00,000 6. M/s Invar Steels Pvt. Ltd. 2,50,00,000 7. M/s Megallan Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. 11,90,00,000 8. M/s Pashmina Textiles Pvt. Ltd. 6,85,00,000 9. M/s Punarvasu Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. 1,55,00,000 10. M/s Scanners Systems & Technology Pvt. Ltd. 2,46,00,000 11. M/s Etread.com Pvt. Ltd. 3,00,00,000 Total 45,21,00,000 These companies did not exist at the given addresses during the relevant period & as on date also there is no trace of these companies at the given addresses. It was also revealed that no trade licenses were given to some of these companies including M/s Southend Projects & Foundations Pvt. Ltd. by Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation. This clearly shows that these companies were floated only for the purpose of transfer of funds. 30. The said excess amount of Rs. 96.01 Crores collected/received by Sri Kone....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aid 10% advance for 11 plots on behalf of M/s Stylish Holmes to M/s EMGF and out of these 11 plots, 8 plots were allotted to the persons suggested by Sri Koneru Rajendra Prasad and the remaining 3 plots (A-21, A-43, B-24) were still with M/s Stylish Holmes. He further provided the names of villa plot buyers who paid excess amount ranging between Rs. 4000/- to Rs. 45000/- per Sq. Yd., collected by himself or by his manager Sri K. Srinivasa Rao or by Sri Koneru Rajendra Prasad in different times. From this excess amount collected, he has paid an amount of Rs. 2.50 Crores to farmers to purchase lands for family members of Sri Koneru Rajendra Prasad, as per the instructions of Sri Koneru Rajendra Prasad. Sri Koneru Rajendra Prasad used to finalize the buyer and the sale consideration and as instructed by Sri Koneru Rajendra Prasad, Sri K. Srinivas Rao and Sri Tummala Ranga Rao used to handover the excess cash collected from the buyers either to Sri Koneru Rajendra Prasad or to Sri N. Sunil Reddy. As per the instructions of Sri Koneru Rajendra Prasad, two villa plot buyers Sri P.S. Parthasarathi and Sri Challa Suresh, as part of excess payment, have deposited Rs. 1 crore and Rs. 65 lakh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ny cancellation letters to the appellants and this fact is also investigated & concluded by the CBI in its investigation, as mentioned in its supplementary chargesheet that EHTPL had prepared back dated cancellation letters in its computer system when the investigation was started and the said letters were never issued & delivered. They pointed out that the appellants were in physical & constructive possession of the said plots, when the attachment was made by the Respondent Department, as even mentioned in the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the WP filed by some of the purchasers. The appellants were not impleaded in any of the proceedings before the I.O. or the Ld. Adjudicating Authority. No Provisional Attachment Order, Original Complaint or even the copy of the Impugned Order was served to the Appellants despite they being the legitimate owners of the aforementioned plots. 36. Ld. Counsels for the appellants pointed out that the MOUs, Agreement to Sale executed jointly by EHTPL & EMGFLL in favour of the appellants for purchase of villa plots, which are tabulated as under:- S. No. Name of purchaser & Plot no. Date of MOU Date of Agreement A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hey contended that even in the investigation of the CBI, it was categorically concluded that the "Plots remained allotted to the respective buyer" and no such cancellation had taken place and in fact, the main accused persons had hatched a criminal conspiracy to prepare cancellation letters with respect to the Villa Plots in back dates, without notice to the purchasers, who have already tendered 95% of the sale consideration, with an undertaking to tender the balance amount at the time of execution of sale deed. They pointed out that all the 134 Plots in question, the Allotment Letters & Agreements to Sell were executed, but no conveyance deed was ever executed in favour of any purchaser, and thus, the other 100 Plot Buyers, whose Plots were not attached by the ED are in no better position, as compared to the Appellants. They submitted that the plot owned by the appellants do not fall within the definition of the term "proceeds of crime'. The plots were sold by EHTPL to the appellants out of 29.92 acres of land purchased by it from APIIC and duly conveyed to it vide conveyance deed dt. 20.08.2008 on consideration. The appellant purchased the plot from EHTPL by paying considerat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....espective right on the property, which is agreed to be purchased under Agreement of Sale. 39. In additional arguments they submitted that none of the 102 plots sold by M/s Emaar Hills township Pvt. Ltd./ Emaar MGF Land Ltd. was sold by the said company at the time of passing PAO and therefore, the attachment of only 14 plots, including the plots purchased by appellants was wrongly included for attachment. They argued that appellants are the bona-fide purchasers for value. Appellants were not having any knowledge regarding the commission of any fraud, and hence, their plots are wrongly attached by ED. Prayer is accordingly made to allow the present appeals and thereby release their plots from any attachment (as detailed in para no.1 above). 40. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the respondent ED strongly opposed the grounds that M/s EHTPL have entered into an agreement with M/s APIIC to develop township project into 85 Acres with a revenue sharing pattern of 74:26 respectively. CBI Hyderabad conducted investigation regarding the irregularities and filed chargesheet on 01.02.2012 and supplementary chargesheet on 23.06.2012. He pointed out that as per agreement dated 03.11.2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ar MGP Land Ltd., in his statement recorded under Sec. 50 (2) & (3) of PMLA, 2002 on 21.08.2012, that out of 134 plots in EHTPL, 100 plots were sold out and 34 were unsold and the said unsold plots are with EHTPL. He pointed that EHTPL/EMGF has not executed the sale deeds in respect of any of the 34 plots in favour of the appellants. The possession of the plots is not given to the Appellants, as the sale deed is not executed and the property was in the possession of EHTPL at the time of attachment, and hence, the plots are considered for attachment by the Respondent. He also contended that the physical possession of the unsold plots has already been taken over by the Respondent from EHTPL vide Panchnama dated 25.09.2013, as such, the possession lies with the Respondent, as on date. He argued that the Appellants in the garb of the present appeal are seeking a relief of declaratory nature, which is not permissible under law and would be otherwise barred by law of the limitation. Further, it is no res integra, that an unregistered agreement to sell does not confer any right whatsoever in favour of the proposed buyers. Nevertheless, as per EHTPL, the purported Agreement to Sell relied ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y Rs. 5,000/- per Sq. yd. and thereby, generating the excess amount/proceeds of crime of Rs. 102,87,35,000 (Rs.96,01,75,000 + Rs. 6,85,60,000) and causing loss to APIIC. 42. The issues raised by Ld. Counsels for the appellants as mentioned in para 35 to 39 seems to be quite convincing, if same are true & correct. Appellants have taken the plea that they are the Bonafide purchasers of respective Villa Plots, and hence, the said plots need to be released. In order to substantiate these facts, they pointed out the Agreement to Sale and payment details upto about 95% of the agreed sale consideration, which is tabulated as under:- S. No. Name of purchaser & Plot no. Date of MOU Date of Agreement Amount paid About 95% Balance About 5% 1. V. Chamundeshwarnath B-44 20.05.05 22.09.2008 Chq no.759640, 100000 Chq no.759661, 585500 Chq no.187705, 6240000 = 6925500 364500 2. Bijay Kumar Mandhani B-46 Nil 20.08.2008 No Details 7058500 371500 3. K. Lalitha A-11 Nil 01.09.2008 DDNo.089913, 27.08.08= 5662000 298000 4. K. Ramcharan Tej B-30 Nil Nil Chq no.910551 25.09.09= 7338750 Commission Ch....