TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 1313
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....made by it qua the appellant and to hear the appeal on merits. The prayer of the appellant is to hear the appeal on merit and decide it. The prayer has been accepted and accordingly the appellant argued the appeal at length for passing order on merits. Brief facts of the case 2. It is a case where an FIR bearing No. RC 16(A)/2014 was registered by the CBI, Cochin on 26.11.2014 against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short "the PC Act"). It was alleged that the appellant, Shri P. Jose Kunjippalu while working as a public servant in the capacity of Assistant Commissioner, Income Tax Circle-1, Palakkad Range along with his wife Smt. Rosy Jose amassed assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. It was found that during the check-period, the total income of the appellant was Rs. 1,07,41,168/- while he acquired the properties worth of Rs. 1,46,03,843/- and incurred expenses of Rs. 62,09,946/-. Thereby he was found to be in possession of disproportionate assets of a sum of 1,00,72,621/-. It was 93.78% above to his known source of income. 3. The respondent - Enforcemen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... It could not have been made subject to provisional attachment of the properties. The respondent failed to consider this aspect of the matter while provisionally attaching the properties belonging to the appellant and his wife. The ground has been taken in application filed before the Court for discharge, though, the appellant in person fairly conceded that the discharge application has been dismissed by the Court. A challenge to the order has been made by him. 7. The appellant, further, raised the argument in reference to Section 5(1) of the Act of 2002. It is to allege that the provisional attachment of the property can be caused when it is involved in the money-laundering and likely to be dealt with. A case of the nature to fall under Section 5(1) of the Act of 2002 was not made out. Yet, not only the provisional attachment of the properties was caused but even the attachment order has been confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority without considering even the legal issues raised by the appellant. 8. It was with the further submission that there was no element of cash deposit in the bank account, however, it was taken for determining the amount of disproportionate assets in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....purchased the property for a value of Rs. 60,00,000/- from Smt. Nazhat U Mulla on 11.02.2011 with the payment of stamp duty of Rs. 2,82,600/-. The registration fee of Rs. 30,780/- was paid separately. The property was found to be in possession of the appellant at the end of check-period. It was, further, revealed that he had taken housing loan of Rs. 39,10,000/- from SBI for purchasing of the said property and thereby the loan account was considered towards the income. Out of it, repayment of Rs. 18,15,854/-was made. The transaction aforesaid was taken into consideration by the investigating agencies to determine the value of disproportionate assets. 15. The statement of the appellant was also recorded under Section 50(2) and Section 50(3) of the Act of 2002. The provisional attachment of the properties was caused to book the amount to the extent of disproportionate assets and has been confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority. The appellant has questioned the attachment of the properties on the ground that a case for money-laundering would not be made out for the offence under Section 13(1)(e) of the PC Act. It does not allege acceptance of bribe by the appellant and in the absen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion apart from use of such property. It is also when one is involved in commission of scheduled offence. The perusal of the allegation against the appellant would reveal not only a scheduled offence but offence under Section 3 of the Act of 2002 punishable under Section 4 of the Act of the 2002. The appellant has tried to project assets disproportionate to his known sources of income to be untainted while it becomes tainted in absence of the source and otherwise the appellant was involved not only in the concealment but possession of such properties. 19. In the light of the aforesaid, we are unable to accept the first argument raised by the appellant. At this stage, it may be clarified that a case of disproportionate asset for commission of offence under Section 13(1)(e) of the PC Act does not require or pre-supposes an allegation of bribe or acceptance of undue benefit etc. If such allegation is made, the matter can be tried separately for such an offence under different provisions of the PC Act. It would be quite different than the offence under Section 13(1)(e) of the PC Act. Therefore, the second part of the first argument is also not acceptable for causing interference in ....