9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (8) TMI 137X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er referred to as " SAFEMA "). Proceedings under the SAFEMA were initiated against the appellant way back in 1977 with the issue of a notice under section 6(1) and they culminated in an order under section 7(1) made on July 30, 1977. On an appeal to this Tribunal, the order under section 7(1) was set aside with a direction to the Competent Authority to pass an order afresh in accordance with law. In so doing, it was held that the appellant was not given a reasonable opportunity for adducing evidence regarding the initial investment of Rs. 10,000 in khadi and handloom business and such opportunity to adduce evidence should be afforded before a fresh order under section 7(1) was to be passed. It is in pursuance of the said directions of the T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 15, 1978 could not be carried out because the appellant had become insane and is not traceable so far but still the Competent Authority passed an order under section 7(1) holding that the properties specified in the notice under section 6(1) were illegally acquired and directing their forfeiture to the Central Government. In substance, there has been no compliance with the directions of this Tribunal and we would have considered the option of setting aside the order under section 7(1) dated March 15, 1989, on this short ground but for the fact that such a course would have put away the proceedings in cold storage without there being a possibility of their final disposal in near future. This apart, having regard to the value of the propertie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... authorities did not take any action to bring to tax the amount of Rs. 10,000 as income from unexplained sources, which they should have, if the source of the investment of Rs. 10,000 was not proved. The fact that the income-tax authorities did not bring to tax the amount of Rs. 10,000 would be sufficient to infer that the genuineness of the source of investment was accepted. Had the appellant not turned insane and become untraceable, he would have probably provided more concrete evidence to support this inference. But the father of the appellant was and is in no position to provide such evidence. We are, therefore, left to consider the evidence already adverted to by us. The sole question for consideration under the circumstances is whether ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce of any positive evidence to the contrary. The Competent Authority cannot invoke section 21 only to negative a plea of the appellant which otherwise is supported by an order of the Income-tax Officer. It is, however, open to the Competent Authority to brush aside such plea of the appellant on the basis of some other reliable evidence and, in the instant case, the Competent Authority has not come across some other reliable evidence contrary to the one produced by the appellant. In the absence of any such reliable evidence to the contrary, we, therefore, hold that the Competent Authority was not justified in concluding that the assets in question were illegally acquired property of the appellant. In the result, the appeal succeeds and the i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
