https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152083 In forfeiture proceedings under the Act, property may be treated as illegally acquired where the competent authority records reasons to believe on relevant material and the affected person fails to prove lawful sources. The Tribunal upheld forfeiture of business assets, jewellery and silver because the claimed loans, credits and other explanations were not substantiated. It rejected objections based on delay and alleged non-application of mind, holding that explained delay did not invalidate the notices and that the order sufficiently considered the material. However, forfeiture of the life insurance-related property failed because the insurer was not heard and one policy was not identified with certainty; that part was set aside. en-us Fri, 17 Jan 1992 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 24 Jun 2013 14:56:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152083 In forfeiture proceedings under the Act, property may be treated as illegally acquired where the competent authority records reasons to believe on relevant material and the affected person fails to prove lawful sources. The Tribunal upheld forfeiture of business assets, jewellery and silver because the claimed loans, credits and other explanations were not substantiated. It rejected objections based on delay and alleged non-application of mind, holding that explained delay did not invalidate the notices and that the order sufficiently considered the material. However, forfeiture of the life insurance-related property failed because the insurer was not heard and one policy was not identified with certainty; that part was set aside. Case-Laws FEMA Fri, 17 Jan 1992 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152083