https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761809 An appeal under SAFEMA failed where an 838-day delay in filing was not condoned because the explanation was not cogent and government delay alone was insufficient. On merits, alleged contravention of Sections 9(1)(b) and 9(1)(d) of FERA was not proved, as the essential ingredients were not established on the facts and material relied upon. The Tribunal noted that no reliable independent evidence showed receipt or payment involving a person resident outside India, and a statement earlier discarded by the Supreme Court for coercion and duress could not by itself sustain liability. The penalty was therefore left undisturbed. en-us Wed, 12 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 18 Nov 2024 08:55:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761809 An appeal under SAFEMA failed where an 838-day delay in filing was not condoned because the explanation was not cogent and government delay alone was insufficient. On merits, alleged contravention of Sections 9(1)(b) and 9(1)(d) of FERA was not proved, as the essential ingredients were not established on the facts and material relied upon. The Tribunal noted that no reliable independent evidence showed receipt or payment involving a person resident outside India, and a statement earlier discarded by the Supreme Court for coercion and duress could not by itself sustain liability. The penalty was therefore left undisturbed. Case-Laws FEMA Wed, 12 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761809