Additional evidence and lawful source proof can defeat forfeiture when property acquisition is verified from record.

Additional evidence may be received in appeal where the appellant gives a genuine explanation for earlier non-production and the material is necessary to avoid prejudice. On scrutiny of the later-produced sale deeds, income records, provident fund and bank documents, the Tribunal accepted that the movable and immovable properties were traceable to lawful sources such as agricultural income, salary savings, inherited holdings and business remittances. As the record showed lawful acquisition, the factual basis for forfeiture did not survive and the forfeiture order was set aside, with the properties released.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether additional evidence could be taken on record in appeal under the Tribunal's procedure rules. (ii) Whether the forfeited movable and immovable properties were shown to have been acquired from known and legal sources so as to justify setting aside the forfeiture order.

Issue (i): Whether additional evidence could be taken on record in appeal under the Tribunal's procedure rules.

Analysis: The appellants sought to rely on documents that were not produced before the Competent Authority. The Tribunal examined the explanation for non-production and found it genuine. It also noted that the Competent Authority had not been given a full opportunity to verify the later-produced material, and that the respondent's scrutiny of the additional documents had substantially supported the appellants' explanation. In these circumstances, the conditions for reception of additional evidence were treated as satisfied.

Conclusion: The additional evidence was admitted and taken on record.

Issue (ii): Whether the forfeited movable and immovable properties were shown to have been acquired from known and legal sources so as to justify setting aside the forfeiture order.

Analysis: The additional documents included sale deeds, income material, salary and provident fund records, cooperative society certificates, and bank statements. On property-wise scrutiny, the Tribunal accepted that the agricultural lands and bank deposits were supported by plausible lawful sources, including agricultural income, salary savings, provident fund withdrawals, inherited family holdings, and remittances from business activity. Since the materials on record established lawful acquisition of the properties forfeited by the Competent Authority, the basis for forfeiture did not survive.

Conclusion: The forfeiture order was unsustainable and the properties were liable to be released.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the forfeiture order was set aside, and the properties were released from forfeiture.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the appellant demonstrates, through verifiable additional evidence, that the properties were acquired from lawful sources and the Tribunal is satisfied that denial of such evidence would cause prejudice, the forfeiture cannot be sustained.

---