9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (6) TMI 338X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... herein the appellant has requested to allow her to produce additional evidence in the form of : (1) notarised affidavit of M. Habiba Meeran dated January 31, 1996 ; and (2) notarised affidavit of M. Meeran Mohideen son of Mohd. Gani to prove certain facts ; Shri Narayanan, Assistant Director, did not have any objection to this. Since we were satisfied that the conditions specified in rule 14 of the Appellate Tribunal for Forfeited Property (Procedure) Rules, 1986, are satisfied we allowed the additional evidence to be taken on record. The impugned order has been challenged both on the law points as well as on the merits. The legal points as contained in the appeal memorandum and also those advanced at the time of hearing are mainly as under : (a) the reasons recorded by the Competent Authority are not ger mane and relevant for initiating the proceedings under the SAFEMA. The existence of the material as also reasons recorded which are germane and relevant to the act is condition precedent for a valid initiation of the proceedings. The reasons recorded for initiation of proceedings against the appellant ex facie do not disclose that the properties forfeited were purchased ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... forfeited do not belong to the detenu/convict, lies squarely on such relatives/associates. In this connection, we reproduce below the relevant extracts from the judgment (page 844) : It is equally necessary to reiterate that the burden of establishing that the properties mentioned in the show-cause notice issued under section 6, and which are held on that date by a relative or an associate of the convict/detenu, are not the illegally acquired properties of the convict/detenu, lies upon such relative/associate. He must establish that the said property has not been acquired with the monies or assets provided by the detenu/convict or that they in fact did not or do not belong to such detenu/convict. . . There ought to be the connecting link between those properties and the convict/detenu, the burden of disproving which, as mentioned above, is upon the relative/associate. It was argued before us that in the absence of a notice under sub-section (2) of section 6 of the SAFEMA to the detenu the proceedings are void ab initio. We may state that copy of the notice, as stipulated in subsection (2) of section 6 of the SAFEMA has to be given to a person only when he is holding the prope ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the appellant s mother. Secondly, the assessment of Rs. 22,000 under the head other sources in the hands of the appellant s husband had nothing to do with the appellant ; the purchase consideration of Rs. 5,000 were not assessed as such in the hands of the appellant s husband as illegal income. We have given careful consideration to these arguments and do not see much substance in the appellant s arguments. In the year in which this property was purchased the detenu husband was assessed to income-tax in which income of Rs. 22,000 was shown as income from other sources and further that the investment amount in the impugned property was from the appellant s detenu husband. In principle, we do not see any objection to the Competent Authority in making enquiries about the capability of a person who claims to have given a gift or advanced a loan to the appellant. In view of this, we uphold forfeiture of 54 cents of agricultural land. Half share in the following wet land at Eruvadi : Survey No. Acres 671/1 1.80 672/1 0.50 The appellant has claimed that these lands were jointly purchased by her along with Smt. Mohd. Fathumal (wife of detenu s brother) on April 5, 1971. Her shar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... behind the appellant s back and not put to her for rebuttal shall not be admitted as evidence, nonetheless, in the overall facts and circumstances of the case it would not be wrong to hold that the impugned property was an illegally acquired property and was funded through the sources traceable to the detenu husband. House bearing door No. 13, Ward No. 12, Pudukudi West Street, Eruvadi. This property was acquired on August 20, 1971 for Rs. 800, the purchase consideration is claimed to have been paid out of the black gram raised on the agricultural lands and the fact that the appellant has raised black gram in the agricultural land is supported by Village Agricultural Officer s certificate dated June 29, 1976. From scrutiny of the income-tax records for the assessment year 1974-75 of the appellant s detenu husband it is observed that he is admitted to have purchased this property in the name of his wife and a tiled house was got constructed by him for Rs. 2,000 from his own funds. Further, in view of the fact that the agricultural lands on which the alleged black gram was grown, were illegally acquired properties and therefore, income therefrom of such property being from tainted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d property. In fact, we remember to have enquired from the learned advocate as to whether he can suggest any formulation by which any definite portion of the income arising from the agricultural sources could be attributed to any other factors mentioned by him while referring to the Appellate Tribunal s order in Rupchand Prasad v. Competent Authority [1989] 178 ITR 292 (ATFP). He, however, expressed his helplessness. Further, in the instant case, the facts are not wholly identical to those referred to in the case mentioned by Shri Kumar. In that case, the period during which the alleged tainted income was earned covered about 20 years whereas in the instant case the agricultural lands on which the claimed black grams were grown, were acquired in the same year in which this impugned property was acquired. In view of this, we hold that the impugned property has been correctly forfeited by the Competent Authority. Site at No. 71, Main Road, Eruvadi. This vacant site was purchased on November 8, 1971, for Rs. 800 and the appellant has claimed that it was purchased out of the income from her agricultural sources and her husband constructed a shop on the said plot. For agricultural inc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thority has not accepted the loan amount of Rs. 20,000 taken from Shri Mohd. Moideen for the reason that during the wealth-tax proceedings of the appellant s detenu husband he had admitted to have given a loan of Rs. 20,000 to the appellant and denied that any loan was taken from Shri Mohd. Moideen. Secondly, he (the CA) also felt that without any corroborating evidence by way of some accounts, pronote, cheque details etc., the story regarding loan was not acceptable. Another reason for holding the said property illegally acquired property is that part of the funds used to acquire this were from the agricultural lands which he has held as illegally acquired properties. Similarly, as regards the rental income he is of the view that this is also a tainted source inasmuch as the property from which this income has been derived itself has been held illegally acquired property. The appellant has, however, argued that the admission of her husband in wealth-tax proceedings cannot bind her. In any case, the same should have been put to her and a rebuttal recorded before the forfeiture order were passed. Secondly, in the assessment order of her husband loan amount of Rs. 20,000 has been acc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
