Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2008 (7) TMI 1120

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... l Khader for the reason of making payment locally in India by order on behalf of K Abdul Majeed, a person resident outside India in contravention of section 9(1)(d) of FER Act, 1973; (b) penalty of Rs. 6000 each on appellant A. Abdul Khader and said appellant partnership firm for the reason of placing sum of totaling Rs. 25,967.89 to the credit of said K Abdul Majeed, a person resident outside India in contravention of section 9(1)(c) of FER Act, 1973. (c) penalty of Rs. 10,000 each individual appellant K Abdul Majeed and his proprietorship firm M/s Green Bus Service for the reason of making various payment by order or on behalf of K Abdul Majeed, appellant a person non resident Indian in contravention of section 9(1)(d) of FER Act, 1973; ( .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Act, 1932 a partnership dissolves, in absence of contract to the contrary, by the death of a partner. The existence of required contract which is within the special knowledge of appearing partner/partners is not made available. No further maternal has been brought on record showing otherwise. Thus this tribunal is constraint to take adverse presumption permissible under section 106 of Evidence Act, 1872 which provides. (1) Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him Appeal No. 176 and 177/92 were filed by said deceased K. Abdul Majeed on behalf of said appellant firm. Surviving partners, if any, have not come forward and averr .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... lant in appeal No. 184/92 i.e., M/s. Mahindra Kumar and Company it is contended that the said appellant advanced H.P. of Rs 95,000 to A. Abdui Khader, who had been looking after the business of M.'s Green Bus Service, on the basis of R.C. Books of vehicle and route permit issued by transport authorities Government of Tamil Nadu. Thus question of violation of provisions of FFR Act, 1973 does not arise. 8. Per contra Shri AC. Singh, DLA appearing for the respondent contended that K. Abdul Mnjeed in his statement dated 3.3.83 clearly admitted that he had been staying in Malaysia for running a ready made garment and tailoring shop for last 30 years it is further admitted that he used to visit India for a short duration once in a year or two .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e relevant provisions of 2(p)(1)(b) which read as under :- 2(p) 'person resident in India' means (i) a citizen of India, who has, at any time after the 25th day of March, 1947, been staying in India, but does not include a citizen of India who has gone out of or stays outside India in other case - (a) *** *** *** (b) for carrying on outside India a business or vocation outside India, or 10. In the instant case it is admitted position that said K Abdul Majeed used to slay mostly in Malaysia in connection with his business interest and user to come in India once in one or two years. The statement of said K Abdul Majeed and appellant A Abdul Khader recorded by Enforcement Directorate have not been refracted. In such a situation the pro .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... was a person resident outside India. The fact that loan was granted to A. Abdul Khader and not to proprietorship firm is within the special knowledge of said appellant. Thus when the said burden is not discharged the Court may make adverse inference. 12. It is well established that economic offences are committed by white collar persons who adopts every technique to avoid then catching, However, this does not mean that the special or peculiar knowledge of the person proceeded against will relieve the prosecution altogether of the burden of producing some evidence in respect of that fact in issue but even sight evidence may suffice. In this regard it will be apt to refer to the decision of the Apex Court in Collector of Customs v. D. Bhoorm .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates