9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 686X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant that the purchase of the car could not be completed, hence, no documentary evidence could be submitted. Further, for the source of money, the Appellant has filed CA certified copy of Cash book, which explains the source of cash.
Also, it is seen from the order that no proper investigation has been made by the Adjudicating Officer to establish clear chain of events or link between persons involved and no effort has been made to trace or record a statement of Shri Rocky Singh or trace the trail of money. In the absence of any proof or sound basis for levy of penalty or clear chain of events, allowing the appeal and directing the respondent to waive off the penalty and release the confiscated amount within 30 days of this order. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Distt. Nawanshahar where her husband Shri Hardeep Singh S/o Shri Darshan Singh was residing; that he received a telephone call from Smt. Gurbax Kaur in May, 2010 intimating him that she would send an amount of Rs.5,75,000/- to her husband Shri Hardeep Singh as he required this amount and he did not receive this amount till date. 5. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant pleaded that the Ld. Adjudicating Authority in the Order dated 01.07.2016 duly considered the defence plea made by the Respondent during the course of the Adjudication Proceedings. Ld. Adjudicating Authority has correctly pointed out that the provisions of Section 3 (c) of FEMA do not require to specify the country from where the person resident outside India issues instructions for the payment to be made by the person in India. Ld. Adjudicating Authority held that the statement made by the Respondent is true and voluntary despite having been retracted. The amount which was seized by Police could not be explained by the Respondent and hence was suspected to be involved in Hawala. The Respondent had failed to produce the documentary evidence to support his contention that the seized cash was for the purpose of purchase of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mission as evidence. Ld. Counsel stated that no enquiry has been made in respect of Sh. Balbir Singh of England and Sh. Rocky Singh of Delhi in spite of their names with phone numbers having been inserted forcibly by the Police in the retracted statement of the Respondent. Even the statement of Sh. Harjinder Singh about his sister-in-law residing in USA having told him about transfer of money to be made to her husband living in India does not corroborate the allegation against the Respondent. No statement of her husband was recorded. She resided in USA yet the allegation is that the seized money was received by the Respondent on instructions of a person in England. A copy of Cash Book of the jewellery business of the Respondent which accounted for the seized cash has not been accepted by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority. The Cash Book clearly showed an opening balance of cash in hand of Rs. 33,06,073.06/- as on 10.05.2010 which was the source of the seized currency. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent pleaded to dismiss the Appeal. 9. We have considered the rival submissions and the material on record. On perusal of the Adjudication Order dated 01.07.2016, we note that the findings about ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ficers, who had taken the statement along the same line, its admissibility as voluntary statement is hit. As discussed in the preceding paragraph there is no independent evidence to corroborate the statement. 11. The statement of Sh. Harjinder Singh recorded on 15.06.2010 is inadequate in bringing out that the sum of money which was seized from the Respondent was on the instruction of his sister-in-law, resident in USA. Her nexus with the said Sh. Balbir Singh, resident of UK, has not been established in the investigations. Even no investigation has been done about Sh. Rocky Singh in India who allegedly got the seized cash delivered to the Respondent on instructions of Sh. Balbir Singh. It is not clear why no enquiry was made with either Sh. Balbir Singh or Sh. Rocky Singh in spite of their phone numbers being available in the statement dated 12.05.2010 tendered by the Respondent. 12. The Respondent subsequently produced accounts of M/s Ajay Kumar Jewellers, the proprietorship firm of the Respondent, certified by a Chartered Accountant (CA), which was contended to have revealed the source of the seized amount. The Respondent appeared to have withdrawn Rs. 5,75,000/- from the cash ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
