found. In July, 2015, the Enforcement Directorate conducted a search during the course of which cash Rs. 9.90 lakh was found and an amount of Rs. 9.50 lakh out of the same was seized from the residence of the appellants. The present appellant Smt. Rajni Jain in a letter addressed to the Joint Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Zonal Office, Lucknow submitted that the said cash had arisen from the business transactions of M/s Midtown Hotel & Banquets, another proprietorship concern of the present appellant. It was contended that the amount represented profit of the said concern for the subsequent period, i.e., period subsequent to the alleged offence, derived from sale proceeds of bar, restaurant, banquet, room rent and advance against booking of banquet hall etc. It was also contended that the banquet hall was on rent and half yearly instalment was due and, therefore, the appellant was holding the seized amount from a long time. It was also submitted before the Jt. Director, ED by production of relevant extracts from the books of accounts that M/s Midtown Hotel and Banquet at Moradabad had Rs. 38,16,422/- in cash during the period from 01.04.2015 to 14.07.2015 received as sale proceeds from Bar/Restaurant and room rent. Out of the same, the Appellant deposited cash of Rs. 20,61,748/- in bank account and disbursed staff salary of Rs.6,77,519/-, aggregating to total of Rs. 27,39,967/-. The remaining cash, Rs.10,77,155/-, was in the head of M/s Midtown Hotel and Banquets on 14.07.2015. However, the explanation provided by the appellant was rejected on the ground that tax receipts for tax payments in respect of the transactions had not been produced. It is contended that the Appellant deposited Service Tax of Rs.1,41,270/- on 03.07.2015, i.e., before the date of search by ED, against services of air-conditioned restaurants having licence to serve alcoholic beverages in relation to service of food or beverages and Rs.16,845/- on 03.07.2015 for providing service of accommodation. This substantiates the authenticity off the transactions. It is also pointed out that the respondents have held the said cash to be direct proceeds of crime (not „value of such property‟).
