Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Case Laws Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Manuals News SMS Articles Highlights
← Previous Next →
  • Contents
  • Cases Cited


User Login
Stay sign in     

Forget password        New User/ Regiser


2017 (8) TMI 756

Head Note:
Forfeiting the properties as order passed under section 7 of the SAFEMA, 1976 - purview of the term “associate” / "relative" - connection with alleged illegal activities of the detenu - Held that:- The only activities that have been stated in this regard are that the appellant assisted AP-1 to assume the name of Sanjay Srinath Rana and to obtain documents like Ration Card and Passport in the assumed name and that the detenu resided in the residence of the appellant through November, 2004 to April, 2005. We are of the view that the said activities by themselves would not bring the appellant within the purview of the term “associate” on the basis that she was managing the affairs of or keeping the accounts of AP-1 The explanation of the appellant in this regard is that certain documents had been given by her to AP-1/detenu to help her in obtaining the passport for her blind son Nishant Rana, which was misused by him to obtain a passport for himself in an assumed name using the same set of documents.

There is also no evidence whatsoever that may indicate that the appellant was involved in the alleged illegal activities of the detenu/AP-1 in any manner whatsoever. The period of stay of the detenu at the appellant”s premises is also from November, 2004 to April, 2005 whereas the alleged illegal activity of AP-1 was of a later period viz. October, 2005. It is also observed that the impugned order is totally silent as to under which clause of the definition of associate, the appellants case is covered. We therefore find that the finding of the lower authority that the appellant would be covered within the term “associate” as defined in the Act is unsustainable.

We find that the appellant cannot be considered as the wife of the detenu/AP-1 and hence not covered under the term “relative” as defined in the Act. She is also not covered within the definition of the term “associate” of detenu/AP-1 as defined under the Act. Consequently, she does not qualify as a person covered by the provisions of SAFEMA and accordingly the provisions of SAFEMA are not applicable to her. In conclusion, we find that the impugned order is unsustainable in law.


← Previous Next →




Discussion Forum
what is new what is new

Let's just recapitulate:

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.