https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=21837 A forfeiture notice under SAFEMA was upheld despite the absence of fresh reasons to believe on remand, because the original recording of reasons had already been made and the remand was only for want of proper opportunity. A subsequent divorce did not remove the appellant's status as an affected person once that status had attached when the Act came into force, and a detention order under COFEPOSA was sufficient without proof of actual detention. Delay in the section 7(1) proceedings did not by itself invalidate forfeiture. On the evidence, the appellant gave a plausible explanation for the source of funds for four properties, so forfeiture of those properties could not be sustained. en-us Wed, 04 Mar 1992 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 02 Dec 2009 11:19:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=21837 A forfeiture notice under SAFEMA was upheld despite the absence of fresh reasons to believe on remand, because the original recording of reasons had already been made and the remand was only for want of proper opportunity. A subsequent divorce did not remove the appellant's status as an affected person once that status had attached when the Act came into force, and a detention order under COFEPOSA was sufficient without proof of actual detention. Delay in the section 7(1) proceedings did not by itself invalidate forfeiture. On the evidence, the appellant gave a plausible explanation for the source of funds for four properties, so forfeiture of those properties could not be sustained. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 04 Mar 1992 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=21837