https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23141 Non-supply of the recorded reasons with a section 6 notice under SAFEMA did not vitiate the proceedings because the notice contained the essential particulars and no material prejudice was shown. On the burden under section 8, the Court held that the affected person could rebut forfeiture by establishing lawful acquisition on a preponderance of probability where direct proof was not readily available. Considering the surrounding circumstances, including remittance from abroad, the timing of acquisitions and the financial background, the appellants discharged that burden. The forfeiture orders were therefore unsustainable and the properties were not liable to forfeiture. en-us Mon, 23 Jul 1990 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 17 Dec 2009 10:44:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23141 Non-supply of the recorded reasons with a section 6 notice under SAFEMA did not vitiate the proceedings because the notice contained the essential particulars and no material prejudice was shown. On the burden under section 8, the Court held that the affected person could rebut forfeiture by establishing lawful acquisition on a preponderance of probability where direct proof was not readily available. Considering the surrounding circumstances, including remittance from abroad, the timing of acquisitions and the financial background, the appellants discharged that burden. The forfeiture orders were therefore unsustainable and the properties were not liable to forfeiture. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 23 Jul 1990 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23141