9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to orders of Appellate Tribunal and competent authority under SAFEMA for forfeiture of property based on failure to prove lawful sources of funds for acquisition of agricultural land. Analysis: The petitioner sought to quash orders by the Appellate Tribunal and competent authority under SAFEMA forfeiting property due to inability to establish lawful sources for acquisition of agricultural land. The competent authority accepted that a portion of the funds came from the sale of the petitioner's wife's jewelry but rejected the claim regarding loans obtained for the purchase. The petitioner contended that the evidence presented to the Income-tax Officer, acting as a Commission, supported his case of obtaining a loan of Rs. 7,000, and that there was no need to reproduce witnesses before the competent authority. However, the authorities rejected the loan claim, considering it an afterthought and not the initial case presented. The petitioner argued that the rejection of evidence by the competent authority and Tribunal based on non-production of witnesses was unjustified. The court reviewed the orders of the competent authority and Tribunal, noting acceptance of funds from the sale of jewelry but rejection of loan claims due to non-reproduction of witnesses. Section 18 of SAFEMA empowers the competent authority to appoint an Income-tax Officer to conduct inquiries, whose findings become part of the proceedings. The court highlighted a report by the Income-tax Officer stating that witness statements corroborated the petitioner's claims, which the authorities overlooked. The court found the rejection of evidence on loan transactions flawed, as it was based on the wrong premise of witness reproduction and overlooking the Officer's report on witness credibility. The court emphasized that the authorities' failure to consider the Officer's findings tainted their conclusions. Given that a significant portion of the property's value was proven to be from lawful sources, the court deemed the forfeiture unwarranted. After 15 years, the court held that the petitioner had sufficiently demonstrated the lawful source of funds for the property purchase, leading to the allowance of the writ petition and quashing of the orders by the competent authority and Tribunal. The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, stating no costs were applicable.
|
