Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2015 (7) TMI 1375

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ent in FATIMA MOHD. AMIN VERSUS UOI. [ 2003 (1) TMI 657 - SUPREME COURT] delivered by a Larger Bench of the said Court. This Court finds in Fatima Mohd. Amin there does not appear to be any exercise made in interpreting the law declared in Amratlal Prajivandas. Since the interpretation was made subsequently by the Division Bench of the Supreme Court in the manner reproduced above, this Court is bound by such interpretation in following COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, WEST BENGAL-III VERSUS M/S. OBEROI HOTELS(P) LTD. [ 2011 (3) TMI 596 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] and therefore cannot interfere with the order upholding the order of forfeiture made by the competent Authority on the ground that no link or nexus was found to have been established to sh .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 whereby the order of forfeiture of the petitioner's properties made by the competent Authority was upheld. The petitioner's only ground of challenge is that on the materials on record the Tribunal had not found it to be established that the properties ordered to be forfeited were the properties held by the petitioner on behalf of the detenue as his associate. Mr. Chakraborty, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has relied on a decision in the case of 'Attorney General for India v. Amratlal Prajivandas reported in AIR 1994 SC 2179, in particular paragraph 43 thereof to submit that the said Court had interpreted the said Act, inter alia, as follows: ...The idea is not to .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... i (supra) that the facts in that case were that the competent Authority had made orders on the findings that though ostensible owner of the properties was Smt. Kesar Devi but the real owner was her husband Jagannath Sharma, the detenu. On the facts the Supreme Court in that judgment had held as follows: 12. ...In those cases where the relationship is a very remote one, the competent authority may have to indicate some link or nexus while recording reasons for belief that the property is an illegally acquired property. But cases where relationship is close and direct like spouse, son or daughter or parents stand on an altogether different footing. Here no link or nexus has to be indicated in the reasons for belief between the convict or .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ough the reasons recorded by the competent authority along with the show cause notice. We do not find any averments to the effect that the property acquired by the appellant is a benami property of her son or the same was illegally acquired from her son. 8. The contents of the said notices, even if taken at their face value do not disclose any reason warranting action against the appellant. No allegations whatsoever has been made to this effect that there exists any link or nexus between the property sought to be forfeited and the illegally acquired money of the detenu(s). 9. As the condition precedent for initiation of the proceedings under SAFEMA did not exist, the impugned orders of forfeiture cannot be sustained. In that view .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the subsequent Smaller Bench of the Supreme Court in ignorance of the earlier Larger Bench takes a contrary view from the one taken by the earlier Larger Bench. In that situation, the High Court is entitled to reject the view of the latter Smaller Bench of the Supreme Court as per incuriam. 13. In the case before us, the subsequent decision of a Smaller Bench in the case of Ajadi Bachao Andolan (supra), has taken note of the earlier decision in the case of McDowell Company Ltd. (supra), and has interpreted the same and thus, it is not a case of passing decision in ignorance of a binding decision. Therefore, in this case, the view taken by the Tribunal cannot be said to be wrong and is consistent with the one taken in the case of Aja .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates