Gajendra Narayan Vs Deputy Director (Appellate Tribunal Under SAFEMA Delhi)
Marriage Gifts Story Fails the Test — SAFEMA Tribunal Upholds PMLA Attachment of Flat Advance & Bank Balances as Proceeds of Crime
The Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA, New Delhi, dismissed the appeal filed by Shri Gajendra Narayan against confirmation of provisional attachment passed under the PMLA, 2002, holding that large cash deposits made in his bank accounts were not supported by any cogent or reliable evidence and were rightly treated as proceeds of crime.
The attachment covered advance payment made towards a 2BHK flat in Revanta Multistate CGHS, Dwarka, as well as balances lying in the Appellant’s accounts with Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank and HDFC Bank. The Appellant sought to justify substantial cash deposits mainly on the ground that the amounts represented marriage gifts, family contributions, festival receipts, demonetisation-related deposits, and small loans from relatives and friends.
The Tribunal noted that although the marriage took place in February 2016, the cash was deposited months later, in multiple tranches, on the same dates, by different persons, without any convincing explanation. Handwritten lists, affidavits of relatives, and narrative explanations were held to be self-serving and wholly uncorroborated. The pattern of deposits, mismatch of figures, absence of source proof, and inconsistency between affidavits and bank records fatally weakened the Appellant’s case.
Rejecting the argument that non-taxability of marriage gifts under the Income-tax Act insulated the transactions, the Tribunal clarified that the issue under PMLA is the origin and legitimacy of funds, not their taxability. Considering the Appellant’s proximity to persons accused of serious scheduled offences, and the clear disproportion between declared income and cash deposits, the Tribunal held that the explanation amounted to ex-post rationalisation of tainted money.
Finding no infirmity in the findings of the Adjudicating Authority, the Tribunal concluded that the attached assets were involved in money laundering and dismissed the appeal, thereby sustaining the attachment in full
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA AT NEW DELHI
