Home Case Index All Cases Money Laundering Money Laundering + AT Money Laundering - 2020 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (1) TMI 945 - AT - Money LaunderingAttachment of property - property which was rented out for ₹ 65,000/- has been vacated by the tenant and the refundable security deposit of ₹ 3,00,000/- was adjusted against the last four months rent. The date of vacation has not been mentioned nor has the period against which the security deposit has been adjusted been revealed - notice issued under Section 8(4) of the PMLA - HELD THAT - The property was rented out on the basis of unregistered rent agreement. Admittedly Mrs. Poonguzhali, appellant is the owner of the aforesaid property. She had executed the unregistered rent agreement on 01.04.2017. According to the said agreement, she was getting ₹ 65,000/- as rent per month from the tenant. She has not filed any affidavit though an affidavit has been filed by another appellant namely Mr. P.K.M. Selvam, who is her husband and appellant stating that the tenant has vacated the aforesaid property. The affidavit does not say as when the property has been vacated. The affidavit also does not reveal as to when the daughter of the appellant has shifted. No proof has been provided regarding the posting of the husband of the appellant s daughter at Chennai. However, it is clear from the pleadings of the non-petitioner/appellant that the rental value of the aforesaid property is ₹ 65,000/- per month. This fact was not revealed by the appellants when the matter was heard by this Tribunal on 19.06.2017, even though the property at serial no.(ii) was given on rent w.e.f. 01.04.2017. In the light of the admission of the rental value of the said property per month, without prejudice, the appellant Smt. Poonguzhali is directed to deposit a sum of ₹ 65,000/- per month with the respondent w.e.f. the date of confirmation of Provisional Attachment Order as user and occupation charges after deducting the amount already paid in terms of the interim order dated 19.06.2017. The appellant Smt. Poonguzhali is allowed eight weeks time to pay the arrears from the date of confirmation order. The current and future rents shall be deposited by the appellant Smt. Poonguzhali before 7th of next month - Subject to above, the respondent shall not take any coercive action in view of the notice issued on 09.06.2017 under Section 8(4) of PMLA, 2002. Application allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Review of the decision regarding the payment of deposit and monthly rent/user charges for properties let out on rent. 2. Verification of the rental agreements and the actual status of the properties. 3. Compliance with the interim order dated 19.06.2017 and subsequent directions. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Review of the Decision Regarding Payment of Deposit and Monthly Rent/User Charges: The Enforcement Directorate (ED) filed a miscellaneous petition under Section 35(2)(f) of PMLA, 2002 to review the decision dated 19.06.2017. The original decision required the appellants to pay ?15,000 per month per property as user charges. The ED sought a revision to ?55,000 and ?65,000 per month, respectively, for two specific properties, along with a one-time security deposit of ?3,00,000 for each property. The appellants argued that the properties were either self-occupied or rented out with rental income being used to pay substantial EMIs to HDFC Bank, thus requesting exemption from the increased payments to ED. 2. Verification of the Rental Agreements and Actual Status of the Properties: The appellants provided rental agreements and affidavits to clarify the status of the properties. Property No. CCE-151 was rented out for ?55,000 per month, and Property No. CCE-141 was rented out for ?65,000 per month. The appellants also mentioned that Property No. CCE-141 was vacated by the tenant and is now self-occupied by a family member. The Tribunal noted discrepancies in the appellants' statements and the actual rental agreements, highlighting that the properties were rented out despite claims of self-occupation. 3. Compliance with the Interim Order Dated 19.06.2017 and Subsequent Directions: The interim order required the appellants to deposit ?15,000 per month per property and allowed the ED to verify the rental status. The Tribunal found that the appellants did not fully disclose the rental agreements during the initial hearing. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the appellants to deposit the full rental amounts of ?55,000 and ?65,000 per month for the respective properties from the date of confirmation of the Provisional Attachment Order, after deducting amounts already paid under the interim order. The appellants were given eight weeks to pay arrears and instructed to continue monthly payments by the 7th of each month. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the ED's application, modifying the interim order to require the appellants to deposit the actual rental income received from the properties. The appellants were given time to clear arrears and instructed to make future payments promptly. The order remains in force until further notice, and no coercive action shall be taken by the ED in view of the notice issued under Section 8(4) of PMLA, 2002. The appeals were scheduled for further hearing on 29th July 2020, and copies of the order were provided to both parties.
|