Mundra House, 822-A, Shivaju Nagar, Civil Lines, jaipur-302006 9314501680, 9314501791

B.P.Mundra

मानवता से काम करें मन के सारे काम अपने आप हो जायेंगे

इस महीने के इम्पोर्टेंट काम
  • Home
  • GST
  • Cases Income tax
  • MCA
  • Subsidy
  • TDS
  • About Us
  • contact us
  • Login
    • Admin Login
    • Staff Login
    • User Login
  • Loan
  • Apply for job
  • Click Here
  • HOW TO
  • To file ITR for AY 2022-23 kindly give details (and also evidence if yes) of following
  • Categories
    • Articles
    • Authority
    • Benami Transactions (Prohibition)
    • client
    • Constitution of India
    • Finance Act 1994
    • formalities to be completed
    • GST
    • Happiness
    • HOW TO
    • Income Tax
    • Indian Evidence Act 1872
    • Job Application
    • MCA
    • Office system
    • Papers required for filing
    • Principal of mutuality
    • rajasthan public trust
    • Smile
    • Subsidy
    • work report

B.P.MUNDRA

Mundra House, 822-A, Shivaju Nagar, Civil Lines, jaipur-302006 9314501680, 9314501791


Mere pendency of that investigation would not sustain a Provisional Attachment Order(POA) based on allegations which do not form part of those proceedings. Delhi High Court passed the order on 24.01.2023. Kindly click the link to get full order.

B.P.Mundra > Indian Penal Code > 120B > Mere pendency of that investigation would not sustain a Provisional Attachment Order(POA) based on allegations which do not form part of those proceedings. Delhi High Court passed the order on 24.01.2023. Kindly click the link to get full order.

admin January 31, 2023 0 Comments

120B, 1860, 1956, 1973, 2(1)(u), 2(u), 2(v), 3, 420, 45, 482, 5, 8, 8(5), 81, Companies Act, Cr.P.C., Indian Penal Code, MCA, Prevention of Money Laundering Act

 77 total views

Mere pendency of that investigation would not sustain a Provisional Attachment Order(POA) based on allegations which do not form part of those proceedings. Delhi High Court passed the order on 24.01.2023. Kindly click the link to get full order. 

FCA BPMUNDRA 9314501680

[email protected]

 

All that needs to be observed in this respect is that while it may be open for the CBI and the ED to continue to investigate in terms of the liberty granted by the  competent courts, the mere pendency of that investigation would not sustain a Provisional Attachment Order(POA) based on allegations which do not form part of those proceedings. This since the PAO and its validity would have to be evaluated based on the material on which the competent authority had proceeded to form its opinion that the properties constituted proceeds of crime.

  1. This Court in the facts of the present case has found that the PAO essentially rests on allegations which neither form part of the chargesheet submitted by the CBI nor the ECIR. The validity of the PAO is thus liable to be examined on the basis of the material which comprises and constitutes the predicate offence. Similarly, the argument of Mr. Hossain that it would always be open to the investigating agency to submit additional and supplementary chargesheets cannot possibly sustain the Provisional Attachment Orders. Quite apart from the above submission being wholly conjectural, it may only be additionally noted that the PAO or its validity cannot be adjudged based on what the investigating agency may do in the unforeseeable
  2. Hossain had then submitted that the PAO impugned in these petitions is based on more than one allegation and thus even if the Court were to come to the conclusion that one of those would not constitute proceeds of crime, that would not be sufficient to setaside or quash the same. Reliance in this respect was placed on the following observations made by the Supreme Court in Srikrishna (P) Ltd. vs. ITO21:-

―14. In ITO v. Mewalal Dwarka Prasad [(1989) 2 SCC 279 : 1989 SCC (Tax) 266 : (1989) 176 ITR 529] this Court held that if the notice issued under Section 148 is good in respect of one item, it cannot be quashed under Article 226 on the ground that it may not be valid in respect of some other items. We need not, however, dilate on this aspect for the reason that no argument has been urged before us to the effect that since the notice under Section 148 is found to be justifiable in respect of some loans disclosed and not with respect to other loans, it is invalid.‖

Prakash Industries

 

Total Page Visits: 2453 - Today Page Visits: 2

← Previous post

Next post →

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Categories

  • 1860 (1)
  • 1956 (1)
  • 1973 (1)
  • 2002 (1)
  • 2013 (1)
  • Articles (77)
  • Authority (1)
  • Benami Transactions (Prohibition) (1)
  • client (59)
  • Code of Criminal Procedure (0)
  • Companies Act (2)
  • Constitution of India (2)
  • Cr.P.C. (2)
  • Due dates (1)
  • Finance Act 1994 (0)
  • formalities to be completed (6)
  • GST (59)
  • Happiness (4)
  • HOW TO (47)
  • HUF Property (1)
  • Income Tax (294)
  • Indian Evidence Act 1872 (1)
  • Indian Penal Code (1)
  • invalid notice (1)
  • Job Application (0)
  • MCA (3)
  • Notice 148 (0)
  • Office system (9)
  • Papers required for filing (6)
  • PMLA Act (1)
  • Prevention of Money Laundering Act (1)
  • Principal of mutuality (1)
  • rajasthan public trust (2)
  • Smile (7)
  • Subsidy (5)
  • work report (2)
  • Archives

    • February 2023
    • January 2023
    • December 2022
    • October 2022
    • September 2022
    • August 2022
    • July 2022
    • June 2022
    • May 2022
    • April 2022
    • March 2022
    • February 2022
    • January 2022
    • December 2021
    • November 2021
    • September 2021
    • August 2021
    • July 2021
    • June 2021
    • May 2021
    • April 2021
    • March 2021
    • February 2021
    • January 2021
    • December 2020
    • November 2020
    • October 2020
    • September 2020
    • August 2020
    • July 2020
    • June 2020
    • May 2020
    • April 2020
    • March 2020
    • February 2020
    • January 2020
    • December 2019
    • November 2019

    Recent Posts

    • कंपनीज की ऑडिट करने वाले कृपया ध्यान दें, अगर ऑडिट रिपोर्ट में इन्वेस्टमेंट के बारे में प्रॉपर्ली डिस्क्लोज नहीं किया तो सीए को पेनल्टी लगेगी इसी प्रकार कोई भी डिस्क्लोजर बाकी रह गया तो पेनल्टी लगेगी-Penalty u/s Section 450 or Failure to disclose properly in an audit report details of current investment by virtue of section 143 of the Companies Act, 2013
    • Consequences if one fails to furnish three consecutive returns of GST and the department cancels the registration?
    • Consequence when there is a delay of only 41 minutes in delivering the consignment and the Adjudicating Authority passed the order of creating Demand of Tax and Penalty of Rs.19,52,542/-
    • Mere pendency of that investigation would not sustain a Provisional Attachment Order(POA) based on allegations which do not form part of those proceedings. Delhi High Court passed the order on 24.01.2023. Kindly click the link to get full order.
    • Q: Whether outstanding demand from a company can be recovered u/s 179 from the director of the company without pointing out that non-recovery was on account of gross negligent, misfeasance or breach of duty on part of the Director in relation to the affairs of the company? The answer was given by The Hon’ble High Court Of Gujarat on dated 16.12.2022