https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=19705 Evidence recorded by an Income-tax Officer appointed under section 18 of SAFEMA formed part of the statutory inquiry, and the competent authority could not reject corroborative statements merely because the same witnesses were not again produced before it. The Madras HC held that the officer's report, which supported the petitioner's claim that the purchase consideration came from lawful sources, was not properly considered, and the adverse finding on the alleged loans rested on an incorrect premise. The finding that lawful source of funds was not proved was therefore vitiated, and forfeiture of the property was not warranted; the orders of the competent authority and the Appellate Tribunal were quashed. en-us Tue, 26 Jul 1994 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 09 Nov 2009 11:15:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=19705 Evidence recorded by an Income-tax Officer appointed under section 18 of SAFEMA formed part of the statutory inquiry, and the competent authority could not reject corroborative statements merely because the same witnesses were not again produced before it. The Madras HC held that the officer's report, which supported the petitioner's claim that the purchase consideration came from lawful sources, was not properly considered, and the adverse finding on the alleged loans rested on an incorrect premise. The finding that lawful source of funds was not proved was therefore vitiated, and forfeiture of the property was not warranted; the orders of the competent authority and the Appellate Tribunal were quashed. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 26 Jul 1994 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=19705