9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (5) TMI 55X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection 135 of the Customs Act, 1962, for transporting and possessing contraband smuggled goods worth Rs. 54,80,000. The appellant thus falls under the category of "relatives" as defined under section 2(2)(c) of the Act and his illegally acquired property is liable to be forfeited to the Central Government under the provisions of the said Act. The proceedings against the appellant were started by the Competent Authority, Ahmedabad, after recording reasons under section 6(1) of the aforesaid Act. After carrying out due investigations into the sources of investment in the aforesaid property, a final order forfeiting the same was passed under section 7 ( 1 ) of the Act on January 11, 1991. The appellant has taken seven grounds of appeal befor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were finally served personally by the Inspector attached to the office of the Competent Authority on October 8, 1990, on the appellant. In this show-cause notice, the Competent Authority pointed out the failure of the appellant to respond to the notice under section 6(1) as well as the earlier notices under section 7 of the Act. He was specifically asked to furnish the following information : "(i) Yearly income as a seaman since the beginning of his service career with various shipping companies. The salary certificates were also required to be produced ; (ii) The details of family members, dependants and household expenses were required to be filed ; (iii) He was requested to prove the source of investment in the house property in respe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ." The reply of the appellant was duly considered and the reasons for not accepting the same have been elaborately discussed in paras 4 to 9 of the Competent Authority's order. Shri V. V. Bhagat, learned counsel appearing before us on behalf of the appellant, has not pressed the grounds relating to lack of adequate opportunity nor has he sought further opportunity to adduce fresh evidence to prove the sources of investment in the impugned property. The only argument reiterated by him before us is that since the sources of income of the appellant were duly considered by the income-tax authorities, it was not open to the Competent Authority to go into the same question again and challenge its validity. In other words, learned counsel for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ompetent Authority was not justified in brushing aside a plea supported by the finding of an Income-tax Officer particularly in the absence of any positive evidence to the contrary, on the basis of section 21 of the Act alone." Thus, there is no merit in the argument of the appellant's counsel that the findings of the income-tax authorities should be treated as conclusive. In the present case, the Competent Authority has not ignored or lightly brushed aside the findings of the Income-tax Commissioner. On the other hand, he has collected positive evidence to the contrary on the basis of which the findings of the income-tax authorities have not been followed. He has gone beyond the evidence furnished before the income-tax authorities and ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ver five years and five assessments at Rs. 20,000 each were completed for the assessment years 1965-66 to 1969-70. While conveying his decision to the appellant, the Commissioner of Income-tax further observed as follows : "The question of cost of construction of the house will be considered in the assessment year 1970 - 71. " In other words, there was no positive finding by the income-tax authorities regarding the cost of construction of the house property or the source thereof which was to be considered in the assessment year 1970-71 relevant to the accounting year 1969-70 during which the bulk of the investment on the property was made. Since no income-tax return was filed by the appellant for the assessment year 1970-71 or for sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and thus has not discharged the onus cast on him under the smugglers and Foreign Exchange Maniputaors (Forfeiture of Property) Act; (ii) The petition filed before the Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat-II, in respect of the claim of business carried on by him and savings therefrom was false and fabricated; (iii) In view of the said petition, the claim of business is not established and proved; (iv) That the decision of Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat-11, to tax Shri Lallubhai on a different amount of income for a different year further proves that the claim of business conducted, etc., is false and untrue ; (v) That no enquiries were conducted by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat-II, as to the genuineness of the petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
