The securities appellate tribunal recorded the differences between original noticee and appellate noticee – THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA

In respect of 492001 BEFORE THE ADJUDICATING OFFICER SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA ADJUDICATION ORDER NO. Order MC VS 2021 22 14853] UNDER SECTION 15 IOF SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA ACT 1992 READ WITH RULE 5 OF SEBIRULES 1995 Rajesh Agarwal having address at H No. A 8 Near Siddheshwari Temple Radhaswaminagar Bhatagoan Chowk Raipur Chhattisgarh in the matter of Vani Commercials Ltd. 1. Securities and Exchange Board of Indiapassed adjudication order no. Order MC VS 2020 21 8762 8775 dated August 27 2020 inter alia levying a penalty of Rs. 5 00 000 on Rajesh Agarwal (hereinafter referred to as “original Noticee”) under Section 15HA of the SEBI Act 1992 for violation of Section 12A (b) and and of Regulations 3(b) andas well as 4(2)(e) andof the SEBI Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices relating to the Securities Market) Regulations 2003while trading in the scrip of Vani Commercials Ltd.during the “investigation period” or the “relevant period” between May 26 2017 and October 30 2017. 2. The Hon’ble Securities Appellate Tribunalvide order dated 22.12.2021 in Appeal No. 427 of 2020 in the matter of Rajesh Agarwal v. SEBI remitted the matter to the undersigned for fresh consideration and for passing an order in respect of Rajesh Agarwal the appellant before the SAT who has the same PAN as the original Noticee but a different Driving License No. with certain other differences recorded by the Hon’ble SAT in respect of the identification documents of the original Noticee and the Appellant Noticee within six months from the date of the order. The Hon’ble SAT also directed the appellant to appear before the undersigned on January 5 2022. APPOINTMENT OF ADJUDICATING OFFICER 3. The undersigned was appointed as Adjudicating Officer vide Order dated January 4 2022 to inquire into and adjudge under Section 15HA of the SEBI Act the aforesaid matter. SHOW CAUSE NOTICE REPLY AND HEARING 4. Show Cause Notice No. EAD5 MC VS 29776 2019 dated November 11 2019 hereinafter be referred to as the SCN ) was served upon the original Noticee under Rule 4 of SEBI Rules 1995 to show cause as to why an inquiry should not be held and penalty be not imposed against the Noticee under Section 15HA of SEBI Act for the aforesaid alleged violations. 5. E mail ids. and addresses of the original Noticee were obtained from the depositories NSDL and CDSL on the basis of PAN as unique identifier. The SCN was served upon two of the e mail ids. of the original Noticee viz. rajeshagarwal1919@gmail.com and agrwlrjsh@gmail.com on 11.11.2019 while e mail sent to a third e mail id.stated to belong to this PAN as per the records of the depositories bounced back as undeliverable. Adjudication Order in respect of Rajesh Agarwal in the matter of Vani Commercials Ltd. Further as per records obtained from the website of India Post a physical copy of the SCN was delivered to the address “H. No. A 8 Near Siddheswari Temple Radhswaninagar Bhatagon Chowk Raipur Chhatisgarh 492001” provided by the depositories. A copy of the SCN sent to the other physical address attributed to the PAN of the original Noticee as per records of the depositories “204 La Citadel Flat 30 Nutan Bharat Society Alkapuri Vadodara Gujarat” returned undelivered with the comments “door locked” and “insufficient address”. Thus the SCN was successfully served upon one physical address as well as two e mail id’s attributed to the PAN of the original Noticee. 6. Vide e mail dated 27.11.2019 a reply was received from Rajesh Agarwal from an e mail id. viz. r.agarwal7176@gmail.com stating that he was a resident of “601 Aditya ‘A’ Cosmos Heritage Manpada GB Road Thane 400610” and submitting that the address “204 LA citadel Flat no 30 Nutan Bharat Soc Alkapuri Vadodara” the e mail rajeshagarwal1919@gmail.com agrlrjsh@gmail.com mentioned in the SCN did not belong to him and were not known to him. It was further submitted that all the other 13 persons Noticees Group Entities mentioned in the SCN were not known to him nor was he familiar with them. The Noticee Appellant also stated that the mobile numbers mentioned as a basis of connection with other group entities were not known to him and he was not familiar with them and he never had any mobile number “7383913574”. The Noticee also submitted that he had never ever traded in any type of securities related to VCL and that he had not carried out any trades on the dates alleged in the SCN. Noticee also submitted his demat account statementfor FY 2017 18 as obtained from HDFC Securities which did not contain any details of the impugned trades. It was submitted that the SCN had been issued to him on mistaken facts. 7. In order to confirm details of any other trading accounts or demat accounts of the Noticee and to enable re verification of all his addresses and phone numbers the Adjudication Order in respect of Rajesh Agarwal in the matter of Vani Commercials Ltd. Appellant Noticee was asked to confirm his PAN. The Noticee was also asked to confirm the date and mode of receipt of the SCN by him. However no response was received from the Appellant Noticee. 8. Further vide e mail dated 06.07.2020 a hearing notice was served upon three e mail id’s of the original Noticee as per records of NSDL and CDSL and as obtained r.agarwal7176@gmail.com rajeshagarwal1919@gmail.com and agrwlrjsh@gmail.com providing an opportunity of hearing to the original Noticee on 28.07.2020 by videoconferencing. Confirmation was also sought on 28.07.2020 vide e mail whether the Noticee will be availing the opportunity of hearing. However the Noticee did not respond to the e mails and did not avail the opportunity of hearing. 9. In the absence of the required confirmation from the Noticee vide e mail dated 14.08.2020 HDFC Securities was requested to forward PAN and KYC details for entity ID:2180785 obtained from the demat account statement forwarded by the Noticee through his e mail dated 27.11.2019. Upon observing that PAN and date of birth were those on record for the original Noticee and in the absence of any further response from the Noticee Appellant the matter was proceeded with on the basis of the KYC documents available with the undersigned. Since the PAN and date of birth on official records such as PAN card copy driving license and KYC forms were the same for the original Noticee and the Appellant Noticee an assumption was made in the absence of any further inputs from the Noticee that they were the same person. Accordingly order dated 27.08.2020 was passed levying a penalty of Rs. 5 00 000 on the original Noticee with PAN AMXPA5214B. 10. I note that on the basis of documents submitted to the SAT by SEBI as well as the Appellant Noticee the Hon’ble SAT has remitted the matter to the undersigned for fresh consideration after hearing the Noticee. Adjudication Order in respect of Rajesh Agarwal in the matter of Vani Commercials Ltd. 11. The Authorised Representative of the Appellant Noticee Advocate Mr. Amit Kakri appeared before the undersigned on 05.01.2022 and submitted the following: a) The demat account with Beeline Broking through which trades impugned in the SCN took place did not belong to the Noticee and that the Noticee has no connection with Gujarat unlike the other 13 Noticees in the matter. b) The mobile number shown for the connection did not belong to the Noticee. Further the email address and the alleged address in Gujarat was not his. c) Noticee is presently residing in Thane having permanent address at Raipur in Chattisgarh and has no friends acquaintances in Gujarat and had never even visited Gujarat in all these years. d) Noticee for the first time became aware that a Demat account had been opened in his name with Beeline Broking Limited upon receipt of the impugned order dated 27.08.2020 which recorded this fact. e) Aggrieved by the adjudication order dated 27.08.2020 passed by the learned AO the Noticee preferred Appeal 427 2020 before the Hon’ble Securities Appellate TribunalHon’ble SAT at the hearing of the Stay Application on 08.12.2020 had directed the respondent SEBI to file the documents relied upon. In reply to the aforesaid Appeal the respondent SEBI filed two different sets of KYC documents obtained from the depositories that is one set from HDFC Securitiesand the other from Beeline Broking and the same presented before SAT showed that there were contradictions in the photographs and other particulars of the Noticee. It was submitted that the Hon’ble SAT in paragraph 4 of its order dated 22.12.2021 had prima facie observed the aforesaid contradictions in the two sets of documents that had h) The Noticee came to be aware of the proceedings when the Show Cause Notice dated 11.11.2019 was delivered to his permanent address at Raipur been filed by SEBI. Chattisgarh. Adjudication Order in respect of Rajesh Agarwal in the matter of Vani Commercials Ltd. i) The Appellant could not attend the personal hearings that were scheduled in April 2020 on account of the nationwide Covid Lockdown and was unable to attend the virtual hearings that were subsequently scheduled due to inadvertence for reasons explained in the rejoinder filed by the Noticee to the reply filed by SEBI in the proceedings before SAT. Noticee wrote to Beeline Broking vide letter dated 18.09.2020 seeking details of the account with the said broker in the name of the Noticee but that Beeline Broking did not share any details with the Noticee. k) Noticee has filed police complaints alleging crimes committed against the Noticee by the said Beeline Broking Limited and by other unknown persons under IPC Sections 464 465 469 and Sections 66C & 66D of the IT Act 20000 for misuse of his PAN card and other documents. l) The Noticee undertook to submit copies of the said police complaints copies of correspondence exchange with Beeline Broking a clear copy of his PAN card and all relevant documents submitted before the Hon’ble SAT during proceedings in SAT Appeal No. 4220 within a week from the date of hearing. submitted by the Noticee: 12. Vide e mail dated 10.01.22 a compilation of the following documents was Identity Documents of Rajesh Agarwal: a. PAN Card and b. Driving b) Correspondence with Beeline Broking Limited: a. Letter by Rajesh Agarwal dated 18.09.2020 to Beeline Broking Ltd. b. Email on behalf of Rajesh Agarwal dated 18.09.2020 to Beeline Broking Ltd. c. Reply by Beeline Broking dated 29.09.2020 to Rajesh Agarwal c) Copies of police complaints filed by Rajesh Agarwal with Thane and Ahmedabad police stations Adjudication Order in respect of Rajesh Agarwal in the matter of Vani Commercials Ltd. d) Pleadings filed before the SAT in Appeal No. 4220 by the Noticee as well as SEBI e) Copies of orders passed by the Hon’ble SAT in Appeal No. 4220 13. In another hearing requested and granted on 19.01.22 the Authorised Representative of the Noticee reiterated the written submissions made by the Noticee in its rejoinder affidavit during the SAT proceedings and also referred to documents filed by SEBI in its affidavit in reply before SAT. The AR undertook to submit a copy of Aadhaar card of the present Noticee by 24.01.2022 and to confirm whether his PAN was linked to his Aadhaar. 14. Vide e mail dated 22.01.22 the AR of the Noticee submitted a copy of the Adhaar Card for verification as an additional identity document apart from PAN card and driving licence and confirmed that the Adhaar of the Noticee was linked to his income tax PAN. A request was also made for non disclosure of the Adhaar number of the Noticee in the interest of maintaining confidentiality and privacy since orders passed by the learned Adjudication Officer are public documents). 15. In the light of the above factual context the submissions and documents filed before me I now proceed to decide the case on the basis of material on record. CONSIDERATION OF ISSUES 16. The issue arising for consideration in the instant proceedings before me is whether the Appellant Noticee is a person different from the original Noticee to which the SCN was issued and against whom the order dated 27.08.2020 would be applicable. The Noticee has additionally stated that his phone number is not 7383913574 which connected the original Noticee with the connected entities. Consequently establishing the identity of the person against whom the order dated 27.08.2020 would be applicable is essential. Adjudication Order in respect of Rajesh Agarwal in the matter of Vani Commercials Ltd. 17. I note that during the adjudication proceedings conducted in respect of 14 entities including the original Noticee the SCN Hearing Notices and order were served on the address of the original Noticee as noted from KYC documentation and details obtained from CDSL and NSDL in respect of the Noticees including the Appellant Noticee. The particulars of the Noticee as available in the SCN are as follows: Rajesh Agarwal PAN AMXPA5214B) H No. A 8 Near Siddheshwari Temple Radhswaminagar Bhatagoan Chowk Raipur Chhattisgarh 492001 204 La Citadel Flat 30 Nutan Bharat Soc Alkapuri Vadodara E mail: rajeshagarwal1919@gmail.com rajesh.agarwal@tcifrieight.in 18. I note from the trade log that the original Noticee had traded through the broker Beeline Broking Ltd. The material on record contained 2 sets of addresses for the person with name Rakesh Agarwal and PAN AMXPA5214B one of Raipur Chhatisgarh and the other of Vadodara Gujarat. I also note that SCN and Hearing Notice was served on the email ids rajeshagarwal1919@gmail.com and agrwlrjsh@gmail.com belonging to the original Noticee. However no response was received from these email ids or otherwise from the original Noticee. 19. During the appellate proceedings before the Hon’ble SAT certain documents were sought from Beeline Broking Ltd. the broker of the original Noticee who executed the impugned trades. These documents have been produced by the Appellant Noticee before me as part of the papers filed before the Hon’ble SAT by SEBI in Exhibit D of its affidavit in reply. Adjudication Order in respect of Rajesh Agarwal in the matter of Vani Commercials Ltd. 20. In all the Appellant Noticee has produced 4 sets of KYC documents before me including those filed before the SAT KYC documents of Rajesh Agarwalreceived from CDSL(R.K. Stockholding)KYC data for Rajesh Agarwalreceived from NSDLKYC documents of Rajesh Agarwal obtained from Beeline Broking Ltd. KYC documents of Rajesh Agarwal obtained from HDFC Securities Ltd. note the following: 21. Upon perusal of the of the abovementioned sets of KYC documents and data I a) Date of birth of Rajesh Agarwalviz. 19.02.1971 and father’s nameare the same across all sets of documents. b) The KYC form of R.K. Stockholding Ltd. in respect of Rajesh Agarwal as obtained from CDSL mentions his phone no. as “7383913574” which connected the original Noticee with a group entity namely Dilip Sheth Noticee 8 in the SCN who was also party to the adjudication proceedings leading to order dated 27.08.2020. The address of original Noticee is that of Vadodara Gujarat. c) Driving License no. is give as address proof in the KYC form having number GJ062011008547. The signatures on the PAN card and driving license of Rajesh Agarwal in the RK Stockholding’s KYC documents are identical but different from the signature available on the rest of KYC d) The KYC documents obtained from Beeline Broking bring to light similar discrepancies. The signature of Rajesh Agarwalon the copies of the PAN card and the driving license look identical but are different from the signatures on the other pages of the KYC form including the self attestation on the copies of PAN and Driving Licence. Also signature on cancelled cheque copy is different from the self Adjudication Order in respect of Rajesh Agarwal in the matter of Vani Commercials Ltd. attestation on the copy. Further the photo on driving license is different photo on PAN card. e) Driving License No. and other details of Rajesh Agarwal in the KYC documents of Beeline Broking are the same as the Driving License details in the KYC documents of RK Stockholding. f) The mobile numberprovided by Rajesh Agarwalto Beeline Broking is the one which connected Rajesh Agarwal the original Noticee to Pattammal Murlidharan a group entity and Noticee 7 in the SCN issued in the g) In the KYC form of HDFC Securities the signatures of the applicant Rajesh Agarwalare uniform across the form the driving license copy PAN card copy and attestation signatures. However these signatures are different from the signatures of Rajesh Agarwal on the KYC forms of RK Stockholding and Beeline Broking. h) Further the photograph of the person on the driving license copy and PAN card copy of Rajesh Agarwal in the KYC documents of HDFC Securities is different from the photographs of Rajesh Agarwal on the KYC documents of RK Stockholding and Beeline Broking. i) Further the driving license no. of Rajesh Agarwalin the KYC documents of HDFC Securities is CG0420130923140 which is different from the DL No. for Rajesh Agarwal in the KYC documents of the other two brokers of the original Noticee having the Raipur Chhatisgarh address. 22. On a perusal of the documents presented by the Noticee it is evident that there are irregularities in the account opening forms of RK Stockholding and Beeline Adjudication Order in respect of Rajesh Agarwal in the matter of Vani Commercials Ltd. Broking. Therefore the depository participants and the brokers may enquire into the genuineness of the said documents and signatures of the original Noticee Rajesh Agarwalwho had trading accounts with RK Stockholding and Beeline Broking and initiate appropriate action in respect of operation of the non genuine accounts. 23. The Appellant Noticee has stated that he is a senior employee of the Transport Corporation of India which has address at 807 8th floor Windfall Tower Sahar Plaza Complex JB Nagar Andheri east Mumbai 400059 and he has only one demat account with HDFC Securities which he opened only to avail of employee stock options offered to him as a senior employee of TCI. 24. Based on the submissions of the Noticee it is seen that Rajesh Agarwal was the person charged with violation of the PFUTP Regulations for trades impugned in the SCN. However the Noticee who appealed the order dated 27.08.2020 had the same PAN AMXPA5214B but different Driving Licence No. CG0420130923140 and addresses “H. No. A 8 Near Siddheswari Temple Radhswaminagar Bhatagaon Chowk Raipur Chhatisgarh 492001” and “601 Aditya ‘A’ Cosmos Heritage Manpada GB Road Thane 40061”. 25. I also take note of the submissions made by the Appellant Noticee during the hearing on 05.01.22 and in his reply that it appears that a computer resource has been used to impersonate the Noticee and use his PAN and other details to open and operate fraudulent demat and trading accounts with Beeline Broking and RK Stockholding. In support of this contention the Noticee submitted that the Bandhan Co operative Bank account cancelled cheques enclosed with the KYC application forms of the original Noticee do not pertain to the Noticee and the Noticee has no such bank account. In this regard I note that the Appellant Noticee has stated that he has filed police complaint dated 13.12.2020 against Beeline Broking Adjudication Order in respect of Rajesh Agarwal in the matter of Vani Commercials Ltd. Ahmedabad with the Chitalsar Manpada Police Station alleging offences under Section 464 465 and 469 of the IPC 1860 read with Sections 66C and D of the Information Technology Act 2000 for misuse fabrication forgery of identity documents against Beeline Broking Ltd Ahmedabad its officials and unknown persons. An identical police complaint dated 29.12.2020 has been filed by the Noticee with the Navrangpura Police Station Ahmedabad. Further the Appellant Noticee has clarified that his Adhaar is linked with his PAN thus enabling verification of genuineness of his PAN card and trading and demat accounts and connecting his details with another unique identifierremains unchanged as being in violation of Section 12A(b) andand of Regulations 3 (b) and as well as 4 (2) (e) and of the SEBI PFUTP 27. However it is clarified that the Appellant Noticee having PAN AMXPA5214B Driving Licence No. CG0420130923140 and addresses “H. No. A 8 Near Siddheswari Temple Radhswaninagar Bhatagon Chowk Raipur Chhatisgarh 492001” and “601 Aditya ‘A’ Cosmos Heritage Manpada GB Road Thane 400061” being a person different from the original Noticee did not carry out the impugned trades and hence there is no violation alleged against him. Therefore the said order dated 27.08.2020 is not applicable to him. Accordingly the penalty in respect of the Appellant Noticee who has a trading demat account with HDFC Securities is nil. 28. In order to identity the original Noticee information was sought in terms of Rule 4 6) of the Securities and Exchange Board of IndiaRules 1995 from the following persons: a) National Securities Depository Ltd. b) Central Depository ServicesLtd. c) RK Stockholding Pvt. Ltd. d) Beeline Broking Ltd. e) SMC Global Securities Ltd. f) National Stock Exchange of India Ltd. g) Bombay Stock Exchange 29. In response to the above the following inputs were received: a) NSDL Vide e mail dated 27.01.2022 NSDL submitted that it had data in respect of 2 active beneficiary owner accounts with the said PAN HDFC Bank with client id. 39725684 opened on 19.06.2014 with the Raipur address of the Noticee AppellantBeeline Broking Ltd.with client ID 10020755 opened on 20.01.2017 with the Vadodara address of the original b) CDSL Vide e mail dated 18.01.2022 CDSL stated that it had demat account details of Rajesh Agarwal with beneficiary owner address at the original Noticee’s Vadodara address and also mentioning 3 depository participants based in Delhi with which the original Noticee has its demat accounts CDSL managed DP Amrapali Aadya Trading and Investment Pvt. Ltd.RK StockholdingLtd.SMC Global Securities Ltd. All three demat accounts were linked to the original Noticee’s Bandhan Bank account and the said demat accounts were active in the case of RK Stockholding and SMC Global Securities Ltd. and closed in the case of the Adjudication Order in respect of Rajesh Agarwal in the matter of Vani Commercials Ltd. CDSL managed DP. CDSL’s consolidated statement of demat accounts for e mail agrwlrjsh@gmail.com belonging to the original Noticee for client ID: 00168658 shows transactions in October 2017 and August 2016 pertaining to 3900 shares each of Jigyasa Infrastructure Ltd. and Kanak Krishi Implements Limited respectively. Account balance as on date is zero across all the DP c) RK Stockholding Ltd. Vide e mail dated 14.01.2022 it submitted that Rajesh Agarwalopened his trading account with the said broker on 15.09.2016 with client code NV969. He had not carried out any trade since account opening and is trading account was presently inactive in their records. Physical address of Rajesh Agrawal in RK Stockholding’s records was “204 LA Citadel Flat 30 Nutan Bharat Society Alkapuri Vadodara Gujarat 390007” and contact number was “7383913574” belonging to the original d) Beeline Broking Ltd. Vide e mails dated 13.01.2022 it was submitted that the trading accountof Rajesh Agarwalwas inactive since 11.01.2018. Address and phone number of the client on the records of Beeline Broking was stated to be the Vadodara address of the original Noticee and “7383913459” belonging to the original Noticee. e) SMC Global Securities Ltd. Vide e mail dated 27.01.2022 it was submitted that the client Rajesh Agarwalhad one DP account with it which was transferred from Amrapali Aadya Trading and Investment Pvt. Ltd. as per assignment process with CDSL. The said client had not provided account opening form and KYC details documents due to which his account is presently in freeze mode. As per the statement of holding for the said accountit is noted that the said account holds 3900 equity shares of Jigyasa Infrastructure Ltd. and 3900 shares of Kanak Krishi Implements Ltd. Adjudication Order in respect of Rajesh Agarwal in the matter of Vani Commercials Ltd. f) NSE Vide e mail dated 20.01.22 NSE provided UCC details for Rajesh Agarwal based on PAN being AMXPA5214B. For five different client IDs all have same PAN and date of birth but the first 2 are described as “client not traded” and “dormant client” in the status column of the UCC details data provided by NSE. The first 3 id’s have e mail id’s and Vadodara address of original Noticeewhile the remaining 2 id’s have the email id and address of the Appellant Noticeecontinues to be applicable to the concerned original Noticee who traded through Beeline Broking Ltd. and who opened fraudulent trading accounts and demat accounts with Beeline Adjudication Order in respect of Rajesh Agarwal in the matter of Vani Commercials Ltd. Broking R.K Stockholding Amarpali Aadya and SMC Global Securities Ltd. and also a fraudulent bank account with Bandhan Bank as noted above. 32. However the order of penalty dated 27.08.2020 is not applicable to the Appellant Noticee having PAN AMXPA5214B Driving Licence No. CG0420130923140 and addresses “H. No. A 8 Near Siddheswari Temple Radhswaninagar Bhatagon Chowk Raipur Chhatisgarh 492001” and “601 Aditya ‘A’ Cosmos Heritage Manpada GB Road Thane 40061”) who has a trading demat account with HDFC Securities. 33. Copies of this Adjudication Order are being sent to the Noticee and also to SEBI in terms of Rule 6 of the Adjudication Rules. DATE: JANUARY 28 2022 PLACE: MUMBAI MANINDER CHEEMA ADJUDICATING OFFICER Adjudication Order in respect of Rajesh Agarwal in the matter of Vani Commercials Ltd. 

Summary: The securities appellate tribunal recorded the differences between original noticee and appellate noticee – THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA An adjudication order was passed against Rajesh Agarwal (original noticee) levying a penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/-  under Section 15HA of the SEBI Act, 1992, for violation of Section 12A (a), (b) and (c) and of Regulations 3 (a), (b), (c) and (d), as well as 4 (1), (2) (a), (e) and (g) of the SEBI regulation,2003 but the Hon’ble Securities Appellate Tribunal remitted the order for fresh consideration because the Rajesh Agarwal(appellate noticee) has submitted some different identification then the original noticee hence the difference has to be considered between the original and appellate noticee .the matter was adjudicated by MANINDER CHEEMA ADJUDICATING OFFICER in the [ADJUDICATION ORDER NO. Order/MC/VS/2021-22/14853] The show cause notice was sent to original noticee and to appellate noticee on the addresses provided and some enquires were conducted to know the difference and it is noted that since documents submitted to the SAT by SEBI as well as the Appellant Noticee, the Hon’ble SAT remitted the matter to the undersigned for fresh consideration after considering the Noticee response. The issues arising before the officer is whether the Appellant Noticee is a person different from the original Noticee to which the SCN was issued and against whom the order was passed. appellate proceedings were conducted, and it occurred that certain documents were sought from Beeline Broking Ltd., the broker of the original Noticee who executed the impugned trades. These documents have been produced by the Appellant Noticee before the officer as part of papers provided to SAT. some other documents were presented and it was evident that there are irregularities in the account opening forms of RK Stockholding and Beeline brokers. From the submissions made by the appellate noticee it was evident that  a computer resource has been used to impersonate the Noticee and use his PAN and other details to open and operate fraudulent demat and trading accounts with Beeline Broking and RK Stockholding .from the above submission the doubt is clear that  the Appellant Noticee who appeared for the hearing during adjudication proceedings leading to passing of adjudication order dated 27.08.2020 and appealed against it before the Hon’ble SAT is not the same person as the original Noticee who carried out the impugned trades. It is clarified that the appellate noticee is a different person from the original noticee and did not carry out the impugned trades and hence there is no violation alleged against him and the said order is not applicable to the appellate noticee. Taking into consideration the above submission the order dated 27.08.2020 levying a penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- on the original Noticee i.e., Rajesh Agarwal continues to be applicable and not applicable to the appellant noticee. Click here to read the Order