TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 753X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ugned order. It is not discussed as to which of the documents supports the finding of the Adjudicating Authority that ₹ 70 lakhs was out of ₹ 85,28,68,700/- crores and not out of the 19 crores which is claimed as the legitimate money in the account of M/s Indu Builders. Since the defendant /appellant has been consistently raising the aforesaid issue that ₹ 70 crores is not from the proceeds of crime i.e. 85,28,68,700 crores but from other 19 crores, out of the total 104,18,55,950 crores in the account of M/s Indu Builders, it was necessary on the part of Adjudicating Authority to pass a speaking order on merit on this issue. Since the aforesaid issue was a contentious issue of fact before the Adjudicating Authority, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assed in original complaint number (O.C.) No. 263/2014 by the Adjudicating Authority, Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 confirming the provisional attachment order (PAO) No. 1/2014 arising out of ECIR/07/B2/2011. 2. The appellant has prayed for the following reliefs in his appeal memo:- (a) Quash the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority on 24/02/2014 in Original Complaint No. 263/2014, ordering issuance of notice to the Appellant without assigning any reason; AND (b) Set aside the show cause notice dt: 24/02/2014 issued by the Adjudicating Authority; AND (c) Set aside the order passed in original Complaint No. 263/2014, dated 31/07/2014 confirming the Provisional Order of attachment bearing No. 1/2014 in ECIR/07/BZ/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to her company on 07.06.2007. In the meantime, the company of the appellant had applied to the State Bank of India, Indiranagar branch, Bangalore for working capital loan of ₹ 80 lakh which was sanctioned on 16.07.2007 through an over draft account. The said company of appellant repaid a sum of ₹ 70 lakh to the appellant on 01.08.2007 which was transferred to her Federal Bank account on 02.08.2007 (iv) That, at a later date the appellant returned the amount of ₹ 70 lakh, borrowed from Sri K.S. Naidu, by depositing the said amount in favour of M/s G.V. Infrastructure as per the instruction of Sri K.S. Naidu. (v) That, the Appellant was summoned by the Deputy Director of Enforcement Directorate and her statement was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the present appeal. B. GROUNDS (i) that the Adjudicating Authority has not complied with the requirement of section 8(1) of the PMLA and there is gross FPA-PMLA-636/BNG/2014 FPA-PMLA-588/BNG/2014 Page 5 of 8 violation of Article 14 of the constitution and the principal of natural justice. (ii) That, this case does not come within the schedule offence in regard to section 2(y)(ii) of the said Act. (iii) That, PAO does not satisfy the requirements of section 5(1) of the said Act. (iv) That, ₹ 70 lakh has been received from clear and legitimate source and not from ₹ 85,28,63,700 crore allegedly classified as proceeds of crime and as defined under section 2(Y) of the said Act. (v) That, the appellant is not an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which were neither discussed nor decided in the impugned order. One of the main contention raised by the appellant before this Tribunal is that the Adjudicating Authority has not given any reasons as to why he arrived at the conclusion that ₹ 70 lakhs has not come from clean and legitimate source and has come from the alleged proceed of ₹ 85,28,63,700 crores and has failed to appreciate the fact that Sh. B.L. Venkataiah @ Venkaiah in his statement dated 09.06.2014 has stated that ₹ 70 lakhs went to the appellant from ₹ 104,18,55,950 crores in the account of M/s Indu Builders. 8. We have gone through the findings and conclusion of the Adjudicating Authority available at internal page 14 to 17 of the impugned order. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er pleadings. 12. In the light of the above, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Adjudicating Authority for deciding the matter afresh by way of a speaking order which shall disclose findings on all the issues raised by the appellant including the one mentioned in para above. Parties to appear before the Adjudicating Authority on 28.07.2017 who shall deliver the order within 3-4 months from the FPA-PMLA-636/BNG/2014 FPA-PMLA-588/BNG/2014 Page 8 of 8 date of our order after hearing the parties. In view of serious issues involved, we direct that the bench of Adjudicating Authority shall consist of Chairman and two Members including Member (Legal). 13. As far as appeal no FPA-PMLA-588/BNG/2014, wherei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
