Panvel hotelier Rajesh Shetty’s bail rejected by PMLA court in ₹263 crore TDS scam tied to tax official Tanaji Adhikari | Representational Image

Mumbai: The special PMLA court has rejected the bail plea of Panvel-based hotelier, Rajesh Shetty, booked for money laundering in connection with the Rs 263 crore Tax Deduction at Source (TDS) scam, allegedly involving Tanaji Adhikari, a tax official who is the prime accused. The case is being probed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED).

The court refused to accept Shetty’s contentions that the whopping amount of Rs 33.87 crore received by him was just for business investment. Arrested in July 2023, the hotelier is said to have got the alleged proceeds of crime from Bhushan Patil, one of the key accused and Adhikari’s close aide. The tax official had allegedly transferred the amount into the account of SB Enterprises, a proprietary concern of Patil.

Of Rs 33.87 crore, Shetty gave a payback of Rs 13 crore cash to Patil, said the investigators. In his bail plea, the hotelier claimed that Patil was one of his customers whom he knew since 2017. He further said that the multi-crore funds were meant for renovating and expanding the restaurant. There is no proof that money was laundered by routing it into the accounts of relatives, Shetty asserted.

The prosecution argued that the accused was only in need of Rs 20 lakh for investment, but still he took the huge amount. Earlier, the ED had contended that Shetty has not only renovated his hotel but also purchased two high-end cars and a restaurant, transferred money to his close relatives and paid outstanding loans.

After hearing both sides, the court noted that, “A person, who was in need of Rs 20 lakh, gets crores of rupees, still he did not verify its source; which appears to be highly improbable.” The court also referred to Shetty’s admission that Patil had met him after the ED’s raid at the latter’s house and even spoke about the TDS fraud. “In the given situation, an honest person will intimate the agencies, making true the disclosure of what has happened. The applicant has not done it,” the court said. Therefore, only inference, which can be drawn, is that the accused was having knowledge regarding the proceeds of crime, but still accepted the money, it added.

Rahul Dev

Cricket Jounralist at Newsdesk

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *