9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (4) TMI 1217 - AT - FEMAApplications for additional evidences - denial of natural justice - offence under SAFEMA - Held that - After careful perusal of all the submissions and documents we are satisfied that the Competent Authority decided the case without giving a reasonable opportunity to the appellants to produce all the evidence before him. We are also guided by the fact that upon verification and examination, the submissions about the legal acquisition of the forfeited properties have been found to be acceptable by the ld. Authorized representative for the respondent. We accordingly allow both the miscellaneous applications for additional evidences filed by the applicants/appellants and take on record the additional documents filed by the appellants.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the detention order under COFEPOSA. 2. Legitimacy of the forfeiture of properties under SAFEMA. 3. Admissibility of additional evidence. 4. Justification for the forfeiture of specific properties. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Detention Order under COFEPOSA: The detention order dated 18th November 2006, issued against AP-1 by the Government of Maharashtra under Section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA Act, 1974, was neither revoked by the Government nor quashed by any competent Court. This held AP-1 to be a person covered under Section 2(2)(b) of SAFEMA. The appellants argued that the detention order was revoked on 20th February 2008, under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, and the Competent Authority was informed, but the show cause notice was still issued. 2. Legitimacy of the Forfeiture of Properties under SAFEMA: The Competent Authority issued a show cause notice on 2nd April 2008, proposing to forfeit nine immovable and nine movable properties held by the appellants. After considering submissions, the Competent Authority released most properties but ordered the forfeiture of specific properties. The appellants contended that the properties were acquired through legal means, including inheritance and income from legitimate sources. 3. Admissibility of Additional Evidence: The appellants filed additional evidence to support their claims that the properties were acquired legally. The Competent Authority initially did not consider these documents, leading to the appeal. The Tribunal allowed the submission of additional evidence, including affidavits, bank passbooks, agricultural sale bills, and certificates indicating income from various sources. The Tribunal noted that the Competent Authority decided the case without giving reasonable opportunity to the appellants to produce all evidence. 4. Justification for the Forfeiture of Specific Properties: The Tribunal examined the legitimacy of the forfeited properties: - Agricultural Land at Survey No. 250: Purchased by the appellants' father in 1982 for Rs. 6,999/-. The Tribunal accepted that the father, an agriculturist owning 35,513 sq. meters of land, could have funded this purchase. - Agricultural Land at Survey Nos. 19, 107A, 149, 156: Acquired by AP-3, a government employee, with savings from his salary and agricultural income. The Tribunal found the purchase of these properties legitimate. - Agricultural Land at Survey No. 62: Acquired by AP-2 in 1989 for Rs. 19,999/-. The Tribunal accepted the income tax assessment orders showing an average annual income of Rs. 17,000/- from agriculture. - Movable Properties (Bank Deposits and FDRs): The Tribunal accepted the appellants' claims of legitimate income from business, agriculture, and remittances from abroad. The evidence included bank statements, certificates from cooperative societies, and income from selling milk and crops. The Tribunal concluded that the additional evidence supported the appellants' claims of legal acquisition of the forfeited properties. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the Competent Authority's order and releasing the properties from forfeiture. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the Competent Authority's order and releasing the properties from forfeiture. The stay petition became infructuous and was disposed of. No order relating to costs was made.
|
