TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (4) TMI 1069
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erms of Section 6(1) of the said Act calling upon her to show cause why properties at Lingi Chetty Street, Keelakarai, jewellery, Bank Account and cash on hand do not constitute illegally acquired properties liable to be forfeited in terms of the SAFEMFOPA. Despite objections of the petitioner, an order of forfeiture was passed, that was confirmed by the Tribunal vide order dated 27.2.2002 giving way to the present writ petition. 3. Mr. B. Kumar, learned Senior Advocate appearing for Mr.Loganathan on behalf of the petitioner would draw my attention to the provisions of section 6(1) of the Act, wherein a notice to show cause may be issued by the competent authority upon the recording of reasons in writing leading to the belief that all or any of the properties sought to be addressed in the notice are illegally acquired. 4. According to him, the reasons recorded in the present case do not reveal the link between the properties in issue and the detenu which is a pre-condition to their forfeiture as illegally acquired properties . In the absence of such nexus being drawn by the competent authority, the very foundation of the proceedings fail and are, according to him, liable to b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tice under section 6(1) of the Act. The entire superstructure or edifice of the proceedings lies on the strength of the material set out in the reasons to believe. It is at this stage that the competent authority has to justify the link between the assets that stand in the names of the relatives, and the detenu himself so as to establish, at least prima facie, that the relative/associate is a mere name lender for property that has been acquired by the detenu out of the funds, incomes, earnings or assets derived, obtained from or attributable to any activity prohibited by or under/contravening any law for the time being in force relating to any matter in respect of which Parliament has the power to make laws. 9. Mr.Rajagopal, Learned Senior Counsel, however, would draw attention to the definition of illegally acquired property under the SAFEMFOPA and the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985, pointing out the differences in language between the two enactments. Both definitions are extracted below: The definition of 'illegally acquired property' set out in section 3(c) of the SAFEMFOPA reads thus: (c) illegally acquired property, in relation to a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....red by such person, whether before or after thecommencement of this Chapter, wholly or partly out of or by means of any income, earnings or assets derived or obtained from or attributable to the contravention of any provisions of this Act or the equivalent value of such property; or . (emphasis supplied) 10. According to him, the definition of illegally acquired property under the SAFEMFOPA is much wider and consequently, the acquisition of the property, whether illegal or not, would have to be viewed in the context of all other enactments by Parliament as opposed to the Narcotics Act where the definition refers only to violations under that specific Act. That may be so. However, this court is of the opinion that the wider ambit of the definition under SAFEMFOPA does not, in any way, obviate the requirement in the reasons recorded, for the establishment of a link between the property in issue and the detenu. I draw support, in this regard, from the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Aslam Mohammad Merchant and others (supra), Fatima Mohd Amin (supra) and P.P.Abdulla vs Competent Authority ((2007) 2 SCC 510). The latter two judgments have been rendered in the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... assessment as income from Undisclosed Sources (Rs.8,000/-). Therefore, atleast to the extent of Rs. 30,000/- on the admission of Smt. Ameenath Fathima herself, the investment in this house property is from undisclosed sources. Hence it is apparent that this (is) an illegally acquired property . 4. In addition to the above property, she has a house property at her native place viz., Kilakarai. It is seen from the Income-tax records for the assessment year 1975-76 that she claimed that this partly constructed building at the native place valued at Rs. 35,000/- was gifted to her by her mother on 4-12-1974. From the assessment records it is seen that further construction in this property was carried out and the value of building has been admitted at Rs. 60,000/- in the Wealth-tax return for the assessment year 1979-80. There is no evidence on record to show that Smt.Ameenath Fathima s mother was possessed of funds to construct a building for Rs. 35,000/- and gift it to her. In the absence of any evidence to prove the sources for her mother to construct a building at her native place, it is to be taken that the property is an illegally acquired property . 5. It is see....