TMI Blog2001 (1) TMI 920X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d and was drawing a good salary and transferred the amounts to her through NRE account during 1985 and that she acquired the house property during the month of June, 1983, for a consideration of Rs. 2.5 lakhs, and a part of the amount was paid in the year 1983 and the balance was paid in 1985 and 1987 and the transaction was completed in the year 1987. She further submitted that the land, the first property was purchased for Rs. 28,000 and the sale was effected on May 22, 1985, by availing of a loan of Rs. 42,000 by her husband from the Life Insurance Corporation (the LIC) during April, 1985, and, hence, the properties were not illegally acquired. Apart from filing the sale deeds and confirmatory letters regarding availment of loans, etc., the appellant did not furnish any other details of her claim, relating to the employment of her husband abroad and the loan obtained from the LIC and, hence, the Competent Authority, after considering the submissions made on behalf of the appellant and the records, held that both the properties have been acquired through illegal sources and directed their forfeiture. In the appeal before us, the appellant filed a petition for admission of add ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant to pay Rs. 15,420. Learned counsel for the appellant filed objections to the findings and contended that the proposal to impose fine by the Competent Authority in his findings is not justified, as the appellant has properly explained the entire source for the purchase of the second property also. He submitted that the amount of Rs. 12,850 which was held to be tainted, comprised of Rs. 8,100 and Rs. 4,750. The said amount of Rs. 8,100 was given to the appellant by her sister-in-law, Smt. Padma Menon, and the amount of Rs.4,750 represented the cash available with the appellant for repaying the gold loan on June 18, 1996. He, therefore, contended that the appeal should be allowed in its entirety. The first property is a land which is nearly 5 cents in extent, situated in a village. The land was purchased for Rs. 28,000 on May 22, 1985, and the source for payment of consideration was raised by way of a loan from the Life Insurance Corporation of India. The Competent Authority, by the impugned order, held that the appellant could not prove that the land was acquired by raising loan from Insurance policy, as the appellant could not adduce any evidence in support of her claim. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anting annual increments to the appellant on different dates and also the certificate dated January 10, 1991 of the said bank. These documents purport to have emanated from a foreign country and there is no proof of their authenticity. It is not possible to verify their genuineness. Though the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act are not applicable to the proceedings before the Tribunals and in relying upon the documentary evidence, the strict rules of evidence need not be followed, the documents produced by the parties before the Tribunal have to inspire confidence in the Tribunal that they are reliable and that they have emanated from the source in which they are said to have their origin. Neither the alleged authors of the foreign documents have sworn to the fact that they have made them, nor is there any supporting evidence to inspire confidence about their genuineness. So far as the proceedings under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (the FERA), is concerned under section 72 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, the court and the adjucating officer may presume in favour of the authenticity of the document received from places outside India, if they are duly authen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llant, at this late stage, during the hearing of the appeal to grant further time to the appellant to have the documents authenticated, cannot be granted. These documents were not filed before the Competent Authority during the proceedings before him, though the appellant was served with the notice under section 6(1) on May 11, 1987. After a lapse of nearly 13 years, the appellant has filed these documents on November 2, 2000, during the pendency of the appeal, with a prayer to admit them as additional evidence. The Tribunal called for findings from the Competent Authority, based on the documents, filed by the appellant. It is too late in the day for the appellant to make the present request. The documents do not inspire any confidence in our minds that they are genuine. It is pertinent to refer to the affidavit of the appellant which was dated January 1, 1994, filed before the Competent Authority during the pendency of the proceedings, in which it was stated by the appellant that her husband was working in National Bank of Iran. The present documents do not relate to National Bank of Iran. With regard to the claim of the appellant, relating to the foreign draft of Rs. 60,000 w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
