9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (7) TMI 1331X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be by way of gift after paying a premium of Rs. 24,000 for the same. 2. The brief facts of the case are: On 28-10-1991 a search was conducted under section 37 of the Act at the residential premises of one Shri Sumeer Mahajan, as a result of which, foreign currency and documents were recovered and seized. The seized documents included pass-book of various NRE accounts of different persons reported to be settled outside India, blank gift forms and gift deeds. In his statement dated 28-10-1991. Shri Sumeer Mahajan has, inter alia, stated that number of NRE accounts with different Banks in Delhi were opened after the scheme of gifts in foreign exchange including that from NRE account was announced by the Government of India. From NRE accounts g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... claiming that Shri Sumeer Mahajan has given gift of Rs. 2 laksh to Rohit Jain out of love and affection. In the adjudicating proceedings, Shri Rohit Jain did not appear and the case was decided against him by the Adjudicating Officer ex parte on the basis of the evidence available on record. Under the impugned order, a penalty of Rs. 15,000 has been imposed on Shri Rohit Jain for contravention of the provisions of section 9(1)(a) which is being challenged in this appeal. 3. Shri B.B. Khare, the learned counsel of the appellant, strongly contended that there is no evidence for compensatory payments alleged to have been made by the appellant. In the statement of Shri Sumeer Mahajan, there is no reference to Rohit Jain and gifts made to him. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant is not covered by the FERA Board s order referred to for the reason that the date on which gifts were made to the appellant by Sumeer Mahajan did not fall within the commencement of Act 41 of 1991 and the specified date i.e. 1-12-1991. Shri Singh, therefore, maintained that the impugned order is perfectly legal and is in order and this appeal is devoid of substance and should be dismissed as such. 5. I have given my careful consideration to the submissions made by both the parties as well as the material available on record. At the very outset, it is noted that the Remittances of Foreign Exchange and Investment in Foreign Exchange Bonds (Immunities and Exemptions) Act, 1991 is applicable to remittances made after the date of the commenc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e are not specific provisions under the Act to regulate such gifts and, therefore, it is not desirable to ignore those provisions of the Gift-tax Act. This is not of much help to the appellants for admittedly Shri Sumeer Mahajan has stated that he has given gift cheques against a consideration of 12 per cent. It may be relevant to note in this regard that at page 19 of the loose sheet bunch(G) seized from Sumeer Mahajan s residence, there is remark white money against the transaction with Shri M.L. Gupte for Rs. 50,000. Shri Mahajan explained that by white money he meant that the cheque was given without premium. There is nothing on record to indicate that Sumeer Mahajan had not taken any money from the appellant and the gift made to Shri R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
