FINAL ORDER

10.11.2025

By this appeal under Section 26 under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (in short ‘the Act of 2002), a challenge has been made to the order dated 09.11.2021 passed by the Adjudicating Authority confirming the Provisional Attachment Order dated 31.03.2021.

The learned counsel for the appellant referred to the CBI case registered on 31.03.2014 for the predicate offences against M/s Prakash Vanijya Pvt. Ltd., Mr. Manoj Kumar Jain and others. The appellant was not named as accused though after recording ECIR in reference to the predicate offences, the appellant’s husband was named as an accused. The bank account of the appellant has been provisionally attached in the ignorance of the Income Tax Return (ITR) placed on record showing independent income of the appellant out of salary and other investments, thus, having sources for the aforesaid amount found in the bank account and has been provisionally attached.

The learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the Impugned Order was passed after expiry of 180 days from the date of provisional attachment order and thus should have been declared to have been lapsed as per Section 5(3) of the Act of 2002.

It is with the further statement that the Impugned Order could not have been confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority merely based on statement of the appellant under Section 50(2) of the Act of 2002. The prayer was accordingly made to cause interference in the Impugned Order and provisional attachment order for the amount of Rs. 12,44,159/-. The counsel for the appellant did not raise any other issue than referred to.

The counsel for the respondent contested the appeal and made elaborate arguments. It would be referred while recording findings to the arguments raised by the counsel for the appellant to avoid repetition of the same facts and for the sake of brevity.

We have considered the rival submissions made by the counsel for the parties and scanned the record carefully. It is a case where CBI registered an FIR on a complaint by the Central Bank of India alleging criminal conspiracy and fraud in the hands of M/s Prakash Vanijya Pvt. Ltd. and Manoj Kumar Jain apart from others. The ECIR was recorded on 05.09.2016 followed by investigation. The bank account of the appellant has been attached to the extent of a sum of Rs. 12,44,159/-.

The appellant has given reference to ITR to show the sources and reasons for having the amount provisionally attached. It is however with the admission that the bank statement of the appellant was not produced because ITR were sufficient to justify the amount in the bank account.

We have perused the ITR which is for the assessment year 2012-13 and for the prior years and not for the period of the commission of offence. The appellant has not produced ITR for the subsequent period to the period involving the commission of crime. In any case, the provisional attachment was caused subsequently finding the proceeds in the hands of the appellant to the extent of Rs. 12,44,159/-.

In the statement under Section 50(2) of the Act of 2002, the appellant had shown herself to be housewife and purchase of the immovable property to have been financed by her husband who was looking after all her investments. She did not inform about her engagement earlier to earn salary and in any case, the period disclosed in ITR is for the assessment year 2012-13. It is for the period prior to the year of commission of crime. In view of the above and in absence of the bank statements on record, the statement of the appellant for receipt of money from her husband to finance the property becomes relevant and otherwise, attachment of the amount is only to the extent of proceeds in her hand.

The issue remains regarding passing the order by the Adjudicating Authority after expiry of 180 days from the date of provisional attachment order. The issue aforesaid has already been deliberated by this Tribunal in many appeals where the period out of surge of covid-