https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=22845 Forfeiture cannot be sustained where the record and opportunity to prove inheritance are inadequate, because a property cannot be treated as the noticee's self-acquired asset merely from failure to prove a recorded owner's lineage. Where property is alleged to be held by a wife or son on behalf of the noticee, section 6(2) requires service of the notice on that other person as well; without such service, no binding finding or forfeiture can stand against their interest. The material also did not clearly establish ownership of the cow, and the kirana business was treated as being carried on by the son on behalf of the appellant, making notice service mandatory. The forfeiture order was therefore set aside and remitted for fresh consideration after proper notice. en-us Fri, 16 Nov 1990 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 14 Dec 2009 15:06:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=22845 Forfeiture cannot be sustained where the record and opportunity to prove inheritance are inadequate, because a property cannot be treated as the noticee's self-acquired asset merely from failure to prove a recorded owner's lineage. Where property is alleged to be held by a wife or son on behalf of the noticee, section 6(2) requires service of the notice on that other person as well; without such service, no binding finding or forfeiture can stand against their interest. The material also did not clearly establish ownership of the cow, and the kirana business was treated as being carried on by the son on behalf of the appellant, making notice service mandatory. The forfeiture order was therefore set aside and remitted for fresh consideration after proper notice. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 16 Nov 1990 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=22845