https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457680 A penalty for alleged contravention of section 9(1)(c) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 cannot be sustained without verbal or documentary evidence establishing the charge. The tribunal found that the adjudication rested only on receipt of certain amounts in the appellant's name and an inference that she had acknowledged a debt in favour of foreign residents, but the record disclosed no direct proof and no complete evidentiary chain. Mere suspicion, however strong, could not replace proof. The penalty order was therefore unsustainable and was set aside, with the appeal allowed. 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=457680 A penalty for alleged contravention of section 9(1)(c) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 cannot be sustained without verbal or documentary evidence establishing the charge. The tribunal found that the adjudication rested only on receipt of certain amounts in the appellant's name and an inference that she had acknowledged a debt in favour of foreign residents, but the record disclosed no direct proof and no complete evidentiary chain. Mere suspicion, however strong, could not replace proof. The penalty order was therefore unsustainable and was set aside, with the appeal allowed. Case-Laws FEMA Tue, 12 Oct 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457680