The Tribunal upheld the ED’s attachment of ₹4.04 crore worth of properties acquired through extortion and land grabbing. The ruling confirms that merely filing Income Tax Returns (ITRs) is insufficient to establish a lawful income source when no supporting business evidence or financial trail exists for the claimed income.
An Appellate Tribunal upheld the ED’s provisional attachment of properties in a major fraud case. The ruling confirmed that the 2009 amendment to Section 5(1) of PMLA permits property attachment even if the owners are not formally charged, provided attachment is necessary to prevent asset concealment.
Assessments framed under Section 153A based on mechanical approval under Section 153D were invalid in law as Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (Addl. CIT) had accorded omnibus and perfunctory approval to multiple draft assessment orders without application of mind, thereby vitiating the assessments.
NCLT Kochi held that application under Regulation 31A(11) of the IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016 valid as Stakeholders’ Consultation Committee [SCC] with majority vote has resolved to replace the present liquidator.
The Tribunal confirmed the attachment of properties linked to a large Ponzi scheme, finding the alleged unregistered sale agreement with a massive cash component highly suspicious and likely ante-dated. The ruling emphasized that the genuineness of such transactions is highly questionable in PMLA cases.
The Tribunal set aside the freezing of bank accounts and seizure of assets under PMLA, ruling that the Enforcement Directorate’s failure to provide the fundamental FIR documents violated statutory procedure. The key takeaway is that FIRs are essential Relied Upon Documents for PMLA proceedings and their non-supply vitiates the entire adjudication order.
The Appellate Tribunal upheld the attachment of two plots of land, ruling the cash-paid transactions were benami because the appellant failed to prove the source of consideration. The ruling confirmed that the funds were provided by an unidentified person, satisfying the test under PBPTA Section 2(9)(D).
The legal issue was whether property acquired before the predicate offense date can be attached as a value-equivalent under PMLA. The Tribunal confirmed the attachment, ruling that pre-offence property can be attached to secure the vanished proceeds of crime. Key Takeaway: PMLA’s definition of proceeds of crime includes equivalent value property, overriding the acquisition timeline when actual proceeds are untraceable.
The Appellate Tribunal set aside the Adjudicating Authority’s revocation and confirmed the benami attachment on a ₹9.5 lakh transaction that occurred during demonetisation. The transaction was found to be an accommodation entry where cash was deposited into an account and immediately transferred to a firm against commission.
The Appellate Tribunal confirmed the attachment of multiple properties linked to an NDPS convict, rejecting the spouse’s claims of legitimate acquisition. The ruling emphasized that unverified cash gifts and loans, and mere ITR filings, are insufficient to rebut the statutory presumption under Section 68J of the NDPS Act.
