Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2017 (4) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (4) TMI 1069 - HC - Indian LawsOrder passed by the Appellate Tribunal for Forfeited Properties confirming the order of the Competent Authority in terms of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act - Held that:- The wider definition under SAFEMFOPA cannot be pressed into service to bring within the fold of the Act all and every income unless the competent authority draws a link between the same and the detenu. We cannot lose sight of the position that other enactments like the Income and Wealth Tax Acts contain their own mechanisms for addressing undisclosed income/assets and the purpose of the SAFEMFOPA is different as seen from the Preamble of the Act that reads An act to provide for the forfeiture of illegally acquired properties of smugglers and foreign exchange manipulators and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The presence of undisclosed income/wealth has thus to be seen in the context of illegal acts of omission and commission by the detenu only and none other. In the present case, there is not even an allegation made, let alone a link/nexus drawn in this regard. With respect to the house property at Kilakkarai, the explanation by the petitioner was to the effect that the building was gifted to her by her mother and further construction was carried out by her. The competent authority states that there was no evidence to establish that the petitioner's mother had enough funds in this regard and thus assumes that the property is illegally acquired property in the petitioners hands. Jewellery and the bank account with Indian Bank were also held to be illegally acquired on the 'prima facie' consideration that the sources for the acquisition of the jewellery were not proved by the petitioner. Nowhere in the reasons have the properties traced back to the detenu and his acts prohibited/contravening the law. The conclusion of illegal acquisition has been drawn on the mere ipse dixit of the authority. The Reasons recorded by the competent authority do not satisfy the parameters of the Act. As a consequence, the notice u/s 6(1)
|