Summary assessment cannot prove lawful source of assets where the statutory burden in forfeiture proceedings remains undischarged.

A summary assessment under section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, made without enquiry, could not by itself prove the lawful source of assets in forfeiture proceedings or displace the Competent Authority's order. The appellant also failed to show that he was denied a reasonable opportunity of hearing, because notice had been issued, counsel appeared, and a written statement was filed. With no independent evidence supporting the claimed sources of acquisition, and prior income-tax findings not being conclusive, the statutory burden remained undischarged and the forfeiture order was upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellant was denied a reasonable opportunity of hearing before the Competent Authority. (ii) Whether income-tax assessments made under the Summary Assessment Scheme under section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 could establish the source of acquisition of the properties and displace the forfeiture order under the forfeiture statute.

Issue (i): Whether the appellant was denied a reasonable opportunity of hearing before the Competent Authority.

Analysis: The record showed that, after notice under the forfeiture statute, the appellant appeared through counsel and filed a written statement. The opportunity contemplated by the statute was thus afforded, and the complaint of denial of hearing was unsupported.

Conclusion: The objection based on want of hearing failed and the finding was against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether income-tax assessments made under the Summary Assessment Scheme under section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 could establish the source of acquisition of the properties and displace the forfeiture order under the forfeiture statute.

Analysis: A summary assessment merely accepted the return without enquiry and therefore could not carry the same evidentiary value as a regular assessment made after investigation. The appellant produced no independent evidence to prove the genuineness of the cash credits or the source of the capital used for acquiring the assets, and the alleged salary and commission sources were found to be non-existent. The Competent Authority was entitled to rely on this material and to hold that the appellant had not discharged the burden placed upon him under the forfeiture law. Prior income-tax orders were not conclusive against the Competent Authority.

Conclusion: The summary assessments did not prove lawful acquisition of the properties, and the forfeiture order was upheld against the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the appellant neither established denial of hearing nor proved lawful sources for the properties, so the forfeiture order remained undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: A summary assessment made without enquiry does not, by itself, have sufficient evidentiary value to prove lawful source of assets in forfeiture proceedings, and prior findings under another law are not conclusive where the statutory burden of proof is not discharged.

---