Case Laws
Acts
Notifications
Circulars
Classification
Forms
Manuals
Articles
News
D. Forum
Highlights
Notes
🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
⚠️ This portal will be discontinued on 31-07-2025
If you encounter any issues or problems while using the new portal,
please
let us know via our feedback form
so we can address them promptly.
Home
2024 (8) TMI 666 - AT - FEMAProperty forfeited under SAFEMA - Properties were also subject matter of TADA proceedings - HELD THAT - The perusal of Section 8 reveals it to be distinct than the provision of SAFEMA and thereby the judgment of the Apex Court Amina Ahmed Dossa 2001 (1) TMI 1028 - SUPREME COURT in reference to different statute cannot be applied. It is more so when even the facts giving rise to the case are different. If the Appellant and his relatives have filed declaratory suits before the Bombay High Court it would have no bearing on the present proceedings but can be under TADA. Therefore the first issue raised by the Appellant to challenge the impugned order is not made out. The forfeiture of property under TADA is to be dealt with as per the provision of TADA and would have no effect on the action taken as per the provision of SAFEMA. Validity of Notice under Section 6 of SAFEMA - obligation to first establish nexus between the income of the Detenue and the property in question - HELD THAT - As per plain reading of Section 6 of the Act we do not find that the Competent Authority should have issued Show Cause Notice after showing link or nexus with the income of Detenue and property sought to be forfeited. If the argument is accepted we would be virtually rewriting the provision which is not permissible. The second issue raised by the Appellant is accordingly rejected. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice - principles of nature justice have not been followed because proceeding remain pending before many officers but decided by one posted on the date of hearing - HELD THAT - In the instant case the final hearing was made by the Competent Authority on 23rd May 2005 said to be for few minutes without any proof has resulted in pronouncement of order. It was by the same Authority. The written arguments itself show that the Appellant remain present on the date of hearing though said to be only of 10 to 15 minutes. It is however a fact that the order has been passed by the same Authority. Thus arguments in reference to the principle of natural justice is not made out and therefore rejected summarily. Property in question - The property forfeited is a building known as Aqdas Mahal Motlibai Street Agripada Mumbai-400001. The property has been acquired by natural guardian of the appellant by Indenture dated 28.09.1992 for the total consideration of Rs. 6, 50, 000/-. The entire transaction has occurred in a structured manner wherein consideration for the property was paid from the money advanced by way of loans to children. In absence of any loan agreement or documents to support the contentions of the Appellant it remain unsubstantiated. Appellant has otherwise failed to refer to any material produce before the Competent Authority to disclose source for acquisition of property thus arguments in reference to the property cannot be accepted. Appeal dismissed.
|