https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457681 A penalty for contravention of FERA section 9(1)(c) cannot be sustained on mere suspicion where no direct or documentary evidence proves the alleged acknowledgement of debt in favour of a foreign resident. The impugned adjudication rested only on receipt of money and an inferred debt acknowledgement, but no verbal or documentary material supported the charge. In the absence of evidence establishing the foundational allegation, the adverse finding was held unsustainable and the penalty was set aside, reaffirming that suspicion cannot replace proof. en-us Tue, 12 Oct 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 25 Sep 2024 18:44:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457681 A penalty for contravention of FERA section 9(1)(c) cannot be sustained on mere suspicion where no direct or documentary evidence proves the alleged acknowledgement of debt in favour of a foreign resident. The impugned adjudication rested only on receipt of money and an inferred debt acknowledgement, but no verbal or documentary material supported the charge. In the absence of evidence establishing the foundational allegation, the adverse finding was held unsustainable and the penalty was set aside, reaffirming that suspicion cannot replace proof. Case-Laws FEMA Tue, 12 Oct 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457681