2017 (10) TMI 459

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... financial year 1994-95/Assessment year 1995- 96. 2. The Enforcement Directorate received information from the sources that P.R. Ganapathy and Shri Joji Thelliankal, both being persons resident in India were involved in alleged contravention of the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. On the basis of information investigation were conducted against the appellant. 3. After conducting investigation a Memorandum was issued to the appellant in F.No. T.4/5/SZ/C/2000 dated 31.12.1999 alleging that he has contravened Section 9(1)(d) of FERA, 1973 and thereby rendered himself liable to be proceeded against him under section 50 of FERA, 1973. 4. It was alleged in the Memorandum that the appellant a person residing in India with .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rala, for arranging payments from NRE Accounts, collected and gave the NRE cheques to Shri P.R. Ganapathy; that he also received back Rs. 16,28,000/- (inclusive of the premium) on the same day from Shri P.R. Ganapathy in cash on behalf of the said Shri David Mathew of Saudi Arabia and Smt. Monikutti Augustin of Muscat. 8.1 Shri David Mathew of Saudi Arabia, a person resident outside India, in his statement dated 06.08.1997, under FERA, has, interalia, confessed that, lured by the promised return in addition to a premium of Rs. 20,000/-, he gave an amount of Rs. 15,66,500/- to Shri Joji Thelliankal from his NRE Account; that instructed Shri Joji Thelliankal to receive the entire return i.e. Rs. 15,86,500/-, in his behalf. 8.3 Smt. Monikutt .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rom friends. It is correctly mentioned in the impugned order that his denial that he had not given money in return for the cheques/DDs as the statements recorded rather confirmed that the cheques/DDs were received after making payment in cash. Admittedly penalty amount has been deposited by the appellant. I totally agree with the impugned order passed against Shri P.R. Ganapathy. There is no infirmity in the order. Even I am of the view that routine small function such a big amount is not possible to receive as gift from NRI. It is evident that against the gift amount, the cash must have been given by the appellant. 11. As the amount in question was unaccounted sources for his own benefit and directly involved in the contraventions of the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X