TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (11) TMI 766
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng that the detention is necessary, and that it is not in public interest to disclose the facts or to give an opportunity of making a representation to the detenu. 3. Following the said detention, which was unsuccessfully challenged by the petitioner, a notice dated 10-5-1978 was issued by the competent authority under Section 6 of SAFEMA stating that he had reason to believe that the properties mentioned in the schedule have been acquired by him illegally within the meaning of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 3 of SAFEMA. The petitioner was required to indicate the sources of his income, earnings and assets out of which, or by means of which the petitioner had acquired the scheduled properties, and also to show cause as to why they should not be declared as illegally procured properties and forfeited under the Act. The said notice pertained to the following properties : "THE SCHEDULE Description of the property Name of the present holder of property (1) Plot Nos. 35 to 38, Chandrauli, Delhi Shri Piara Lal (2) Plot No. 13/1, 14/15, bearing Khasra No. 21-24 in village Karawal Nagar, Ilaqa Shahdra, Delhi " (3) Plot No. 2, B-Block, Laxmi Industrial Enclave, V,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... again, unable to explain the source of this investment, Piara Lal has surrendered the same for assessment. In this year an addition has also been made on account of inadequate marriage expenses and inadequate household expenses. It will thus be abundantly clear that although Piara Lal's various investments have been considered in the course of assessment proceedings, the source of these investments has at no stage, been proved. Since the source of investment in properties listed at S. No. 1 to 4 of para 3, has not been explained and proved, those properties fall squarely within the purview of sec. 3(1)(c)(iii) of the SAFEMA. Similar is the position with regard to the assets listed at S. Nos. 5 and 6 of para 3, whose source of acquisition has never been proved".                         (emphasis supplied). 6. The competent authority further recorded that the aforesaid properties had been wholly or partially acquired out of, or by means of income, earnings or assets, the source of which has not been proved "and which has not been proved and which has not be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... v. Union of India & Ors. in W.P. (C.) No. 4581/1996, decided on 4-9-2007 by S. Ravindra Bhat, J. 9. On the other hand, the submission of learned counsel for the respondent, Mr. Malik is that the "reasons to believe" recorded by the competent authority are sufficient. He submits that nexus between the income derived from illegal activity and the acquisition of the property need not be established where the property concerned is that of the detenu himself. The said nexus is required to be established only when the detenu's property is held benami in the name of any other person or relative. It is only in such cases that the nexus between the income derived from illegal activity, and the property is required to be established. 10. He has further placed reliance on Section 8 of SAFEMA, which provides that in any proceedings under this Act, the burden of proving that any property specified in the notice served under Section 6 is not illegally acquired property shall be on the person affected. He submits that the petitioner had not been able to explain the source of his income, wherefrom the aforesaid properties had been acquired by him. Even if the belatedly filed returns w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent case, in the notice dated 15-3-1988 issued to the appellant under Section 6(1) of the Act (copy of which is annexed as Annexure P1 to this appeal), it has not been alleged therein that there is any such link or nexus between the property sought to be forfeited and the alleged illegally acquired money of the appellant. 11. Hence, in view of the decision of this Court in Fatima Mohd. Amina's case (supra), the said notice dated 15-3-1988 has to be held to be illegal. Consequently the order passed in pursuance of the said notice is declared as null and void. The appeal is, therefore, allowed and the impugned orders of the High Court and the concerned Authorities are set aside. No costs".   (emphasis supplied) 13. In Gian Chand Garg (supra), the facts of the case were somewhat similar. Like in the present case, the detenu had filed income tax returns collectively for five previous years (in the present case, they were filed for nine previous years), prior to the passing of the detention order. The detention order was passed after the filing of the said returns, like in the present case as well. The Court held that there was not a whisper that any enquiry or investi....