|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 1657 Records
-
2024 (10) TMI 1637
Unexplained money u/s.69A - unexplained cash deposits - claim of the assessee that the cash deposits in his bank accounts were sourced out of the cash withdrawals made during the demonetization period - HELD THAT:- As it is a matter of fact borne from record that the assessee had during the pre-demonetisation period in September, 2016 i.e. immediately prior to announcement of the demonetisation policy by the government, therein made cash withdrawals from his bank account, the availability of which with him to source the cash deposits in SBNs during the demonetization period had not been disproved/dislodged by the department, therefore, we are unable to persuade ourselves to subscribe to the aforesaid observation, based on which, the A.O had, inter alia, rejected the assessee’s explanation as regards the source of subject cash deposits in his bank accounts.
We are of a firm conviction that as the A.O had failed to place on record any material which would prove to the hilt that the amount of cash withdrawals of Rs.78.80 lacs (out of cash withdrawals of Rs.98.80 lacs) made by the assessee during the pre-demonetisation period, i.e. in September, 2016 was thereafter invested/utilized by the assessee somewhere else and, thus was not available with him to source the cash deposits in SBNs in his bank accounts during the demonetization period, therefore, there could have been no justification on his part to have held the cash deposits as the assessee’s unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act. Accordingly, we herein vacate the addition made/sustained by the lower authorities. Appeal of the assessee is allowed
-
2024 (10) TMI 1636
Seeking grant of regular bail u/s 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, read with Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) - predicate offence - applicability and interpretation of Section 45 of the PMLA - HELD THAT:- In the present case, the predicate offence has been registered against the applicant by ACB/EOW, Raipur Chhattisgarh under 120-B, 420,467,468,471 of IPC and Section 7 & 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act which are schedule offences included in Paragraphs 1 & 8 of Part-A of the Schedule to PMLA, 2002 as defined under Section 2(1)(y) of the Act. The predicate offence FIR; documents including the statements recorded u/s. 50 of PMLA, 2002 shared by Mr. Thandi Lal Meena, Assistant Director, Prosecution Complaint filed by the IT and the date shared by the Income Tax Department were analyzed by the ED. From the statements of the witnesses who had reaffirmed their statements given in the earlier ECIR 11 it has come into fact that a well planned systematic conspiracy was executed by the syndicate to earn illegal commission in the sale and licensing of liquor in the State of Chhattisgarh.
From the investigation by the ED it has been revealed that CSMCL was used by the syndicate to enforce a parallel excise department which comprises of senior bureaucrats of State, politicians and officials of Excise Department. The applicant was leading the CSMCL and was the MD of the organization. It has been further revealed that the applicant was assigned with the task of maximizing the bribe commission collected on liquor procured by M/s. CSMCL and for making necessary arrangement for sale of non duty paid liquor in the CSMCL run shops.
In the instant case, after investigation by the ED, it has come to notice that the placement of the applicant as the head of M/s. CSMCL and Special Secretary in State Excise Department being an influential person and close to senior bureaucrats, masterminds of the present liquor syndicate earned profits. The applicants direct involvement in the commission and execution of the entire scam has been investigated wherein extortion of commission from the sale of unaccounted liquor could be attributed - The applicant is alleged to have conspired with M/s. Prizm Holography by lowering the tender conditions and ensured supply of lacs of duplicate holograms which were required to make the1liquor look real liquor.
It is the case of prosecution that a criminal syndicate comprising of high level State Government officials, private persons and political executives of the State Government were operating in the State of Chhattisgarh and collecting illegal bribe from the State Departments and State Public Sector undertakings by sale of liquor which is one of the major source of their illegal earning. In the initial investigation, it has come into account that there was massive corruption in the Excise Department of Chhattisgarh since the year 2019 - it cannot be said that no prima facie ofence whatsoever is made against the applicant. After carefully analyzing the material available on record which goes to show that there is prima facie involvement of the applicant in the crime in question and the charge sheet has been filed. Since, the allegations against the petitioner were serious nature therefore there was material to infer his involvement in serious crimes.
Conclusion - Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, and taking into account the nature and gravity of the offence, the role of the applicant herein, the manner in which he is alleged to have conspired with other co-accused persons and thereby was part of a syndicate and involved in the illegal earning by assisting in providing duplicate holograms, transferring funds to foreign lands, charged with economic offences of huge magnitude and considering the nature of charge and gravity of offence, the applicant is charged, which is extremely serious and looking to the special and stringent provision under Section 45(1) of the PMLA for grant of bail, in the considered opinion of this Court, it is not proper to order release of present applicant on regular bail.
The prayer for bail made by the applicant under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) read with Section 45 of the PMLA, is hereby rejected.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1635
Denial of benefit u/s 11 - delayed submission of Form no. 10B - as argued Form 10B filed subsequently and accordingly, same is considered as technical default which does not take away fundamental rights - HELD THAT:- Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court by judgment ASSOCIATION OF INDIAN PANELBOARD MANUFACTURER VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [2023 (3) TMI 1374 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] holding that w.e.f. Astt. Year 2016-17 filing of form though mandatory in nature but procedural in nature, owing amendment made in Finance Act, 2015. In the present case, however same has been filed subsequently, and therefore, the above decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court is squarely applicable.
Assessee having satisfied the requirement of the law, we set aside the impugned orders of the Revenue authorities, and allow the grounds of appeal.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1634
Denying Foreign Tax Credit claimed by the assessee u/s 90 - denial for want of filing of requisite Form 67 along with return of income - HELD THAT:- We find that the issue of foreign tax credit is covered in assessee’s favor by the decision of this Tribunal in the case of ITO vs. Smt. Chengam Durga [2024 (4) TMI 1227 - ITAT CHENNAI] The bench, considering the decision of case of Duraiswamy Kumaraswamy [2023 (11) TMI 1000 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] held that filing of this form in terms of Rule 128 was only directory in nature. The rule is only for the implementation of the provisions of the act and it would always be directory in nature.
Respectfully following the same, we direct CIT(A) to grant impugned Foreign Tax Credit to the assessee after verifying Form No.67. Aappeal stand allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1633
Valuation of Excise Duty - inclusion of notional cost of drawings and designs supplied free of cost by Maruti to the vendors in the assessable value - HELD THAT:- This issue was examined at length by this bench of the Tribunal in Denso India Private Limited versus Additional Director General (Adjudication) [2024 (3) TMI 686 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] and it has been held that 'The inevitable conclusion, therefore, that follows from the aforesaid discussion is that the notional cost of drawings and designs supplied free of cost by Maruti to the vendors cannot be included in the assessable value of the parts and components manufactured by vendors and cleared to Maruti for the purpose of payment of central excise duty.'
Conclusion - The notional cost of drawings and designs provided by Maruti cannot be included in the assessable value of parts manufactured by vendors.
For the reasons stated in Denso India Private Limited, these three appeals would have to be allowed.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1632
Money Laundering - seeking grant of bail - period of incarceration suffered of nearly two years and one month - HELD THAT:- It is directed that the appellant, Prem Prakash, will be released on bail during the pendency of the trial arising out of Prosecution Complaint/ECIR Case No. 04/2022 in ECIR/RNZO/03/2022 dated 08.03.2022, titled “Directorate of Enforcement v. Pankaj Mishra & Ors.”, pending before the learned Special Judge, CBI-cum-Special Court under PMLA at Ranchi, Jharkhand, under the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The terms and conditions for grant of bail will be fixed by the trial Court.
The impugned judgment is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1631
Reversal of ITC - availment of ITC beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 16 (4) of the CGST Act - HELD THAT:- After the filing of these Writ Petitions, certain development took place, i.e. that 53rd GST Council Meeting was held on 22.06.2024, and during the said Meeting, the GST Council recommended for extension of the deadline for availing ITC on any invoice or debit note under Section 16(4) of the CGST Act and this extension would be applicable to any GSTR-3B returns filed for the Fys 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21 with a new deadline deemed to be as ''30.11.2021'', to which, the Presidential Assent was also obtained by the Government of India on 16.08.2024, whereby, the financial proposals of the Central Government for the Financial Year 2024- 25 was given effect to vide Finance Act, (No.2) of 2024, and in view of the aforesaid enactment, the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, issued a Notification, bearing No.17 of 2024-Central Tax, dated 27.09.2024, pursuant to which, a Circular No.237/31/2024-GST was issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, which was addressed to all the Principal Chief Commissioners/Chief Commissioners/Principal Commissioners/Commissioners of Central Tax (All), thereby, clarifying the issues regarding implementation of provision of sub-section (5) and subsection (6) in Section 16 of CGST Act, 2017, the impugned orders are no longer sustainable and liable to be quashed.
This Court considering the fact that the issue involved in all these Writ Petitions is only with regard to the availment of ITC, which is barred by limitation in terms of Section 16 (4) of the CGST Act, and in the light of the subsequent developments took place, whereby, Section 16 of the CGST Act was amended and sub-section (5) was inserted to Section 16, which came into force with retrospective effect from 01.07.2017, the petitioners are entitled to avail ITC in respect of GSTR-3B filed in respect of FYs 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21 as the case may be, on or before 30.11.2021, is inclined to quash the impugned orders.
The orders impugned in all Writ Petitions are quashed insofar as it relates to the claim made by the petitioners for ITC which is barred by limitation in terms of Section 16 (4) of the CGST Act, 2017 but, within the period prescribed in terms of Section 16 (5) of the said Act - In view of the fact that the impugned orders are quashed, the respondent-Department is directed to take immediate steps towards defreezure of the concerned petitioners bank accounts, which have been freezed in furtherance of the impugned orders, by sending intimation to the concerned bankers.
Conclusion - i) The legislative amendments providing retrospective relief must be applied to pending disputes, especially when such amendments are intended to address widespread issues affecting taxpayers. ii) The orders impugned in all Writ Petitions are quashed insofar as it relates to the claim made by the petitioners for ITC which is barred by limitation in terms of Section 16 (4) of the CGST Act, 2017 but, within the period prescribed in terms of Section 16 (5) of the said Act.
All the Writ Petitions are allowed.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1630
Validity of order passed by the Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA - Petitioners seek directions to set aside the summons issued to Petitioner No. 1 by ED u/s 37(1) and (3) of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 - HELD THAT:- After some arguments learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners would be satisfied in the event this Court were to prepone the hearing before the Tribunal.
Keeping in view the averments and submissions in the present case, the hearing before the Tribunal is preponed to 4th November, 2024. The Tribunal is directed to decide the matter in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a month from the next date of hearing.
Tribunal is directed not to adjourn the matter at the request of either of the parties.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1629
Levy of service tax - Steamer Agency Services - income earned from Freight forwarding activity, pertaining to the ocean freight related to the ocean cargo and the margin earned on sale of space on the shipping lines to the exporters/ importers - HELD THAT:- The issue regarding service tax on the booking of space in the ships of the shipping lines is squarely covered by the Tribunal in the matter of M/s Tiger Logistics India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax-II, Delhi [2022 (2) TMI 455 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], where it is held that 'the appellant is not liable to pay service tax.'
Conclusion - Appellant were not liable to pay service tax on the margin earned from ocean freight.
The appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1628
Initiation of proceedings u/s 153C being barred by time - falling beyond the period of six years from the date of recording of satisfaction note - HELD THAT:- There is no dispute that in assessee’s case for A.Y. 2008-09 notice u/s 153C was issued on 20.01.2016, therefore the assessment year 2008-09 is beyond the period of six assessment years. We find that coordinate Benches of the Tribunal have decided identical issue in favour of the assessee. Therefore, following binding precedent, we hold that the assessment made for A.Y. 2008-09 is barred by limitation, therefore, the same is hereby quashed. Ground is allowed.
Framing of assessment u/s 143(3) which was otherwise required to be framed u/s 153C - Whether framing of assessment under a wrong provision of law is curable u/s 292BB of the Act? - HELD THAT:- AO in opening observations noted that a search operation was carried out in pursuance of authorization by Director of Income Tax (Chandigarh) u/s 132(1)(A). Also noted that a notice u/s 153C r/w Section 153A was issued. In response thereto the assessee had filed his return of income. Thereafter, the AO assessed income u/s 143(3) of the Act.
AO has also recorded that the assessment is made u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act. Thus, the assessment order is contrary to law and deserves to be quashed. Moreover, the AO could have rectified the order, if it was a clerical mistake. He did not do so. Be as it may, at this stage before us it is the order stated to have been passed u/s 143(3) of the Act, which is patently illegal.
Estimation of income - bogus purchases - AO rejecting the books of account maintained by the assessee u/s 145(3) made the impugned addition - stand of assessee is that all details in the form of books of accounts, copy invoices, GR, bilties etc. were filed before the Assessing Officer and the AO without pointing out any specific defect therein rejected the books of account u/s 145(3) and made the impugned addition applying the GP rate of 0.24% on the total turnover - HELD THAT:- We fail to understand the reasoning of AO as at one hand he stated sale/purchase claimed to have been made by M/s Kamal Trading Company as bogus then he proceeds to make addition on the basis of GP disclosed by the assessee without any justification and explanation. Such order, on merit as well, fails to meet the test of law and deserves to be quashed. The grounds raised by the assessee are allowed. Appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1627
Rectification of mistake - mistake apparent on record - oversight in not extending the cum-duty benefit in the final order - HELD THAT:- It is found that the appellants have made a request for extending benefit of cum-duty; it appears that the request was not analyzed and no finding on the same was given in the said order. To that extent, there is a mistake apparent on the face of the records due to oversight which requires to be corrected.
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the appellant’s own case [2002 (2) TMI 101 - SUPREME COURT] held that 'the Tribunal was right in directing that the respondent is entitled to the benefit of Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Central Excises & Salt Act.'
The ROM application requires to be accepted. The last Para of the Final Order shall now read as follows in place of the existing para:
'16. In view of the above, both the appeals are partly allowed restricting the demand to normal period and setting aside the penalty. However, the appellants are required to pay interest, as applicable, on the duty confirmed for the normal period. The appellants shall be entitled to cum-duty benefit.'
Conclusion - The rectification of mistake application was granted, the appellants were entitled to cum-duty benefit.
ROM application allowed.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1626
Unexplained cash credits u/s 68 - assessee failed to furnish the supporting evidences before AO - CIT(A) has deleted the addition holding that the assessee has duly submitted relevant proves like copy of account, copy of the bills, confirmations, proof of payment and VAT return and held that the Assessing Officer in his remand report has accepted the genuinenity of the transactions, therefore, no addition can be made out of the outstanding balances.
HELD THAT:- Since the remand report has categorically accepted by the genuinenity of the sundry creditors we hold that no addition can be made on the difference in the sundry creditors as alleged by the Assessing Officer. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is hereby affirmed. Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1625
TP adjustment - alleged option premium arising on alleged sale of embedded call option to Indorama Netherlands BV - assessee submitted that CCDs cannot be equated with call option - HELD THAT:- We find that the assessee issued CCDs to the AE through the CCD subscription agreement dated 30/12/2019. The CCDs Cannot be equated with call options. The assessee did not enter into the sale of any call option to its AE.
Thus, the question of receiving any ‘option premium’ does not arise. CCDs were issued in accordance with the terms of CCDs subscription agreement dated 30/12/2019 and the same was not a contract for sale for any ‘call option’. The revenue was not able to show any income element in the deal as issuance of CCDs which is a capital account transaction and not giving rise to any income. As settled proposition that transfer pricing provisions are not charging provisions and in absence of ‘income’ chargeable to tax under any charging provisions of the Act, transfer pricing provision cannot be invoked.
We respectfully relied on the order of Vodafone India Services Pvt Ltd [2014 (10) TMI 278 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] held that in the absence of any income in nature of notional or otherwise in the nature of options premium, transfer pricing adjustment cannot be made. Even income arising from international transaction between AE must satisfy the test of ‘income’ under the Act and must find its home in chapter X on charging provision.
DR was unable to show any revenue generating from these transactions. The calculation of ALP amounted to Rs. 33,88,000/- by the direction of the DRP on account of alleged option premium is unjustified and liable to be deleted.
TP Adjustment on account of purchase of business from HIIPL - AR argued on non-applicability of section 56(2)(x) of the Act on purchase / receipt of ‘business under taking’ - The section 56(2)(x) can apply only to transaction of ‘property’ as defined in that section, but the ‘property’ is never included with ‘business undertaking’. the acquisition of Huntsman group’s global business was between two unrelated parties, so section 56(2)(x) is not applicable related to “slump sale” and accordingly is directed to be deleted.
Adjustment on account of interest on CCDs paid to INBV - AR submitted that CCDs are debt instruments until conversion - CCDs are utilized for the purpose of business for payment of purchase consideration for acquisition of business undertaking from HIIPL as an ongoing concern on a slump sale basis and entire transaction is guided by the CCDs subscription agreement. Further, it is placed that the RBI took on record related to issue AE under automatic approval route of RBI. The assessee Suo-motu disallowed an amount out of total interest paid in accordance with thin capitalization rule u/s 94B of the Act during filing the return of income. We find that there is no wrong in the submission of the Ld.AR.
We respectfully follow the order of CAE Flight Training India Pvt Ltd [2023 (6) TMI 24 - ITAT BANGALORE] wherein the coordinate bench of ITAT has explicitly rejected reliance on that RBI policy / FEMA guidelines adopted by the revenue for recharacterizing CCDs as ‘equity’ for tax purposes. DR has not rebutted the submission of the AR by submitting any contrary judgment. Addition was made on account of the company following adjustments are duly set aside and liable to be quashed. In our considered view, the grounds of the assessee are succeeded.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1624
Challenge to order of the Single Judge of the High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad - consolidation of the CIRP of all the three companies - HELD THAT:- There are merit in the grievance that the High Court had no justification, to direct the deferment of the CIRP in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Significantly, the High Court declined to grant the main relief which was sought in the petition for the consolidation of the CIRP of three corporate entities. After coming to that conclusion, there was absolutely no reason for the High Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 by directing the deferment of the CIRP. Such a direction under Article 226 breaches the discipline of the law which has been laid down in the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016.
Conclusion - The High Court had no justification, to direct the deferment of the CIRP in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Appeal disposed off.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1623
Reopening of assessment - Period of limitation to issue notice issued u/s 148A(b) - scope of notices issued u/s 148 of the new regime between July and September 2022 - Application of TOLA to the Income Tax Act after 1 April 2021 - concerned AO can be asked to decide the said issue in terms of the observations of the Supreme Court in RAJEEV BANSAL [2024 (10) TMI 264 - SUPREME COURT (LB)]and drop the proceedings where they fall beyond limitation, or are below the value of Rs. 50.00 lakhs - HELD THAT:- While examining the cases, the example as mentioned by the Apex Court in its judgment in Rajeev Bansal’s case [2024 (10) TMI 264 - SUPREME COURT (LB)] and observations made in paragraph Nos. 110 and 111, shall also be taken into consideration. Cases, which fall less than the value of Rs. 50, 00, 000/- would have to be dropped keeping in view the stand taken by the revenue before the Apex Court, as observed in paragraph No. 53.
The aforesaid exercise shall be conducted by the concerned competent Officer of the Department expeditiously, preferably, within a period of two months without any further delay. The decision shall be conveyed to the assessee in terms of the faceless regime by the concerned Officer keeping in view the provision of Section 144-B of the Act.
If any of the petitioner/assessee is still aggrieved of the order passed, remedy in terms of the provision of the Act can be availed by him.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1622
Challenge to order passed by the Assessing Authority - no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- The impugned order dated December 1, 2023 is quashed and set aside with a direction upon the authority concerned to issue a fresh show cause notice to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from date and continue with the proceedings in accordance with law.
Petition disposed off.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1621
Deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) - interest income earned - assessee is a cooperative credit society accepting deposits and lending money to the members of the society - HELD THAT:- Undisputed fact shows that assessee is earning business income from business of providing credit facilities to its members. Therefore, whole of the business income is deductible u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act .
Further with respect to the interest income earned by the cooperative society from another cooperative banks which are necessarily cooperative societies in terms of the provisions of section 2(19) of the act. Therefore, interest earned by the assessee on its deposits with other cooperative banks, the assessee is eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act.
Assessee is also eligible for deduction to the extent of ₹ 50,000 in terms of provisions of section 80P(2)(C)(ii) of the act.
Income from profits and gains from the specified activity, deduction is granted under section 80P(2)(a)(i)
Deduction under section 80P(2)(d) only the deduction with respect to the interest received by the assessee from another cooperative bank which are cooperative society are granted. The learned CIT – A has directed the learned assessing officer to examine the above fact and decide the issue. On careful consideration we find that all income of the assessee other than interest received from non-cooperative societies i.e., schedule banks or other banks which are not cooperative banks, is eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) or (d) of the act.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1620
Change of cause-title in the appeal - disallowance of CENVAT credit on input services - HELD THAT:- The issue in dispute is no more res integra and the Tribunal in the case of M/s Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. V/s Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Meerut-I [2024 (6) TMI 1423 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD] held that 'It is not even the claim of the appellant that the CENVAT Credit should be allowed to them on the diesel/ electricity by treating them as input under Rule 2 (k) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The fact that service provider has paid service tax on the service provided by him consuming these inputs is not in dispute. We do not find any merits in the findings recorded by the adjudicating authority in respect of this demand and set aside the same.'
The facts of the present case are squarely covered by the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal and the same is followed - the impugned order is set aside and the appeal filed by the Appellant is allowed.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1619
Money Laundering - Provisional Attachment Order of the properties - proceeds of crime - properties acquired prior to the commission of crime had no nexus with the crime - HELD THAT:- The argument has been made in reference to the judgment of Kerala High Court in the case of Satish Motilal Bidri [2024 (6) TMI 1392 - KERALA HIGH COURT] and the judgment of Apex Court in Pavana Dibur [2023 (12) TMI 49 - SUPREME COURT] to hold that the properties acquired prior to commission of crime would not fall in the definition of “proceeds of crime”. The arguments which may otherwise make second part of the definition of “proceeds of crime” to be redundant cannot be accepted. It would be for the reason that if the definition is taken only in two parts leaving the middle part, then it would be difficult for the enforcement agencies to protect the property till completion of the crime to save the victim from crime committed by the accused. It would be for the reason that if the property acquired prior to commission of crime would not fall in the definition of “proceeds of crime”, then the accused would commit the crime and immediately proceeds would be siphoned off or vanished so that it may not remain available for attachment.
If the definition of “proceeds of crime” is given interpretation by dividing it into two parts or by taking only two limbs, then it would be easy for the accused to siphon off or vanish the proceeds immediately after the commission of scheduled offence and in that case none of his properties could be attached to secure the interest of the victim till conclusion of the trial. This would not only frustrate the object of the Act of 2002, but would advance the cause of the accused to promote the crime of money laundering.
It is reiterated that any other interpretation other than the one taken by Delhi High Court in the cases of Axis Bank [2019 (4) TMI 250 - DELHI HIGH COURT] and Prakash Industries [2022 (7) TMI 877 - DELHI HIGH COURT] for the definition of “proceeds of crime” would defeat the object of the Act of 2002. It is more especially when the arguments raised by the appellant that the property acquired prior to the commission of crime would not fall in the definition of “proceeds of crime”. In that case, the task of the accused would become very easy to first commit the scheduled offence and after obtaining or deriving the property out of the criminal activities, immediately siphon off or vanish so that it may not remain available for attachment and otherwise the contingency aforesaid would satisfy only the first limb of definition of “proceeds of crime” leaving the second.
The argument raised by the appellant cannot be accepted so as to make the middle part of the definition of “proceeds of crime” to be redundant.
The only argument raised by the appellant cannot be accepted and for that appeal fails and is dismissed.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1618
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - defects in notices issued against a dead person - right of legal representatives - petitioner has been a search carried out in the premises of other person, wherein certain material information has been recovered evidencing transactions between the deceased father of the petitioner and the person who was searched - HELD THAT:- We find that the petitioner had earlier filed petitions challenging the notice u/s 148 and the petitions were disposed of with direction to supply reasons, which were supplied and thereafter the respondents have proceeded to pass assessment order.
The cases require deeper consideration in view of recent judicial pronouncement in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Rajeev Bansal [2024 (10) TMI 264 - SUPREME COURT (LB)] whereas interim orders were passed earlier in other cases prior to aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
The notices are alleged to be defective on the ground that the same were issued against a dead person, but the contents of the notices issued from time to time show that the name of the petitioner was reflected in the notice along with the name of his deceased father.
Physical assessment carried out by the respondents is subjected to challenge in the second round of petition, whereas the petitioner was satisfied with the direction issued by this Court in earlier round of litigation that he may be supplied with reasons.
We notice that even if the petitioner would have filed a statutory appeal against the order of assessment, he may claim protection against recovery, subject to depositing 20% of the demand in view of various circulars issued by the CBDT.
Thus as ordered that if the petitioner deposits 20% of the demand in each case within a period of one month, recovery of balance amount under assessment orders and demand notices issued in aforesaid cases, shall remain in abeyance. The stay applications stand partly allowed to the extent, as stated above.
........
|
9911796707
