Attachment order didn’t require any interference as appellant couldn’t prove that seized amount wasn’t untainted

FEMA, BANKING & INSURANCE: Where appellant had failed to discharge burden of proving that amount which was seized from his possession was not proceeds of crime or untainted amount as required under section 24, impugned provisional attachment order did not require any interference

from http://www.taxmann.com Latest Case Laws https://www.taxmann.com/topstories/101010000000186683/attachment-order-didn’t-require-any-interference-as-appellant-couldn’t-prove-that-seized-amount-wasn’t-untainted.aspx