therefore, no notice was issued to the appellant company, nor any legal proceedings was initiated for payment of sale consideration. He pointed out that the appellant has sent letter/notice to the Renu Residency in respect of the dues pending against them. The Ld. Adjudicating Authority also failed to appreciate that the bills raised by the appellant against Renu Residency, for construction and consultancy charges, accrued before the date of registration of Sale Deed and this is more than sale consideration payable by the appellant. Further, the appellant is not in any way connected with the proceeds of crime, nor he has been named in the FIR, nor has been arrayed as an accused in the charge sheets filed by CBI. He stressed that the appellant is a bonafide purchaser and he does not have any knowledge of the property being purchased by the defendant No.3 from the proceeds of crime. Further, as per the allegations in the original complaint, an amount of Rs.2.9 crore has been invested in defendant No.3 company, which is the proceeds of crime and the complainant ED has already attached the assets of defendant No.3 worth Rs.2,94,98,736/-, vide order dated 20th September, 2013 in OC No.195/2013. Thus, the property in question is in no way connected with the proceeds of crime. Further, the appellant had discharged its burden under Section 8 (1) of the PMLA by explaining the legitimate sources of income for acquisition of land attached by ED, and thus, the Ld. Adjudicating Authority erred in confirming the PAO. Further, it is contended that appellant has already paid the amount of consideration in respect of the property purchased and even a cheque was issued to the Shyam Ganga Realtors hence, the property in question cannot be said to have been involved in money laundering, as the amount of sale consideration in possession defendant No.3 (by way of dues payable to the appellant co.) is the proceeds of crime, but
