Ms. Sheela countered the argument by stating that the initiating authority was not a fact finding authority to allow cross-examination. She said the adjudicating authority would grant that opportunity to the appellants. She also told the court that the appellants had already been served with copies of all documents, which the initiating authority had relied upon to invoke the 1988 Act and attach their immovable properties.

[4/21, 10:52] Sekarreporter: VDO.AI
However, Ms. Sheela countered the argument by stating that the initiating authority was not a fact finding authority to allow cross-examination. She said the adjudicating authority would grant that opportunity to the appellants. She also told the court that the appellants had already been served with copies of all documents, which the initiating authority had relied upon to invoke the 1988 Act and attach their immovable properties.

Mr. Balaji told the court that the case of his client D.V. Balaji, owner of the land on which Spectrum Mall at Perambur in Chennai had been constructed, stood on a different footing since no Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) for its reported sale had been recovered by the I-T sleuths. He contended his client had not agreed to sell the mall and that he had not received any consideration whatsoever, as claimed by the department.

Countering this argument, Ms. Sheela said though no MoU had been recovered in the case of Spectrum Mall, other promoters of the mall had given statements conceding that an MoU was entered upon for selling the mall for a negotiated price of ₹192.50 crore. Of the agreed amount, ₹130 crore was given in demonetised currency but the middleman deducted his commission and handed over ₹119.82 crore on December 16, 2016.
[4/21, 10:52] Sekarreporter: 💐