9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (11) TMI 101X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s in terms of section 2(2)(c) of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (hereinafter the "Act"). They were issued notices under section 6(1) of the Act with respect to the following items of properties acquired by their predecessor in interest, Sunil Chandra Roy : Immovable properties : 1. Land measuring 17 kathas together with a house property thereon, situated at, Raiganj township--Holding No. 173, Ward No. III, which is jointly owned by Sunil Chandra Roy and Brojendra Nath Roy. 2. Land measuring 2 kathas, 10 lecha together with a house property thereon, situated within Ward No. IV of Dhubri Municipality, Patta No. 498, Dag Nos. 346 and 348, which is jointly owned by (i) Sunil Chandra Roy ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t Authority, it is evident that the "reasons to believe" for issuing notices under section 6(1) of the Act to the appellants were recorded. But a copy of the reasons recorded was not supplied to the appellants. The only point that remains to be considered, therefore, is the effect of the lapse on the part of the Competent Authority in supplying a copy of the "reasons to believe" to the appellant along with the notices under section 6(1) of the Act. This point was considered by this Tribunal in Chatar Singh Nagra v. Competent Authority [1990] 186 ITR 83 (ATFP) and it was held that the lapse on the part of the Competent Authority in supplying a copy of the "reasons to believe" by him to the affected person would not vitiate the very proceedin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bunal. It is thus clear that the detention of the detenu can neither be challenged before nor set aside by this Tribunal. It is, therefore, beyond the competence of this Tribunal as well to declare the detention of the detenu unjustified or otherwise. It has been argued on behalf of the appellant that the Competent Authority has failed to link the acquisition of the items of properties in dispute by Sunil Chandra Roy with the illegal activities of his detenubrothers, Benoy Kumar Roy and Brojendra Nath Roy. The order of the Competent Authority is liable to be set aside on this ground. This contention also is without merit. There is no specific provision in the Act nor does its scheme suggest that the acquisition of the properties by the af ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... out Rs. 6,000. The income-tax authorities reported that Sunil Chandra Roy was working as a manager on Rs. 200 per month since January, 1960, in a jewellery shop. The jewellery business was being carried on under the name of "Angarag Silpalaya". The Competent Authority has inferred that Sunil Chandra Roy with an income of Rs. 200 per month could not have the means to spend about Rs. 6,000 for the acquisition of this item of property and more so when he had his wife and two sons to support. After hearing learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Deputy Director on behalf of the Competent Authority, we are of the opinion that the finding of the Competent Authority vis-a-vis this item cannot be sustained. It has come in evidence that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for Rs. 10,200 on September 22, 1954. By a settlement deed dated February 14, 1958, he divided this property into seven equal shares and kept one share tor himself and gave the remaining six shares to his six brothers. The case of the appellants before, the Competent Authority was that this item of property had been acquired with the joint Hindu family funds and it consisted of Sunil Chandra Roy and his six brothers. This property was, therefore, divided into seven shares in 1958. This plea has not been accepted by the Competent Authority. The view taken by the Competent Authority is erroneous. The family had migrated from East Pakistan and this item of property had been acquired in 1954. It was divided into seven shares in 1958. Sunil Chan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ontractor with the Public Works Department and was also running a jewellery shop in the name of his wife. It was, therefore, not abnormal for him to make substantial deposits in his current account. The Competent Authority has erred in forfeiting the balance amount in the current account as well. Item No. (2)--Truck WGR 656 : It has not been taken notice of nor discussed by the Competent Authority in the impugned orders passed against the appellants. It has not been forfeited. This item has been brought to our notice by the learned Deputy Director appearing on behalf of the Competent Authority. His contention is that it is due to inadvertence that this item was not taken notice of by the Competent Authority while passing the impugned orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
