https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=22592 Forfeiture under the Act cannot validly extend to a person's share in house property without mandatory notice and hearing where the competing claim to that share must first be examined; an alleged relinquishment said to have occurred before the section 6(1) notice does not cure the defect. Property not included in the section 6(1) notice, including a business concern carried on under a separate name, also cannot be forfeited in the same proceedings. The operative effect is that forfeiture depends on prior statutory notice to affected persons and coverage of the property in the notice. en-us Tue, 16 Apr 1991 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 11 Dec 2009 13:10:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=22592 Forfeiture under the Act cannot validly extend to a person's share in house property without mandatory notice and hearing where the competing claim to that share must first be examined; an alleged relinquishment said to have occurred before the section 6(1) notice does not cure the defect. Property not included in the section 6(1) notice, including a business concern carried on under a separate name, also cannot be forfeited in the same proceedings. The operative effect is that forfeiture depends on prior statutory notice to affected persons and coverage of the property in the notice. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 16 Apr 1991 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=22592