TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (4) TMI 1217
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... AP-1) by the Government of Maharashtra under Section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA Act, 1974. The said order of detention was neither revoked by the Government nor quashed/set aside by any competent Court having jurisdiction and thus AP-1 was held to be a person covered under Section 2(2)(b) of the SAFEMA. His wife Smt. Vinuben Dayalbhai Ahir (referred as AP-2), his two brothers, Shri Maganbhai Kikabhai Ahir (referred as AP-3) and Shri Govindabhai Kikabhai Ahir (referred as AP-4), his mother Smt. Naniben Kikabhai Ahir (referred as AP-5) and his two nephews Shri Manojbhai Govindabhai Ahir (referred as AP-6) and Shri Rahulbhai Maganbhai Ahir (referred as AP-7) and Smt. Ranjanaben Hareshbhai Ahir (referred as AP-8), the daughter-in-law of his brother were also deemed to be covered, being the relatives of AP-1 in terms of Section 2(2)(c) of the Act. On the basis of information received from the investigating agency and after conducting necessary investigation a show cause notice dated 2nd April, 2008 was issued to all the APs under Section 6(1) of the Act proposing to forfeit nine immovable properties and nine movable properties held in the name of the affected persons either jointly or indivi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en stated that the detention order which was issued by the Government of Maharashtra on the basis of seizure of Indian currency from him at the Airport, upon a representation filed to the Under Secretary, Government of Maharashtra, the said detention order was revoked on 20th February, 2008 under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, that the Competent Authority was duly informed about the revocation of detention order but still a show cause notice was issued to all the affected persons, that the Advocate representing the affected persons made due submissions before the Competent Authority about the acquisition of properties through legal sources including inheritance. 6. The appellants have submitted that AP-4, namely, Shri Govindbhai Kikabhai Ahir was a Government employee working with the Animal Husbandry Department, Government of Gujarat and he retired on superannuation on 31st January, 2009 after putting in 39 years of service, that he was having agricultural land inherited by him and as such the forfeiture of properties held by him was totally illegal and bad in law. In respect of the immovable properties the following facts have been stipulated in a tabular form in th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....remitted valuable foreign exchange through his NRE account in India, a copy of the bank statement was also enclosed. The order passed by the learned Competent Authority forfeiting different movable and immovable properties has been assailed on the ground that he had failed to consider the submissions made by the noticees and had forfeited even small amounts lying in different bank accounts though there were valid explanations furnished for those amounts. 10. Reply to the appeal was filed by learned Inspecting Officer SAFEMA/NDPSA, Mumbai Unit, Ahmedabad in the form of a written submission supporting the order passed by the learned Competent Authority. It was submitted that the agricultural properties which were forfeited by the learned Competent Authority were not supported by the documents regarding legal sources of investment and in absence of such evidences, the learned Competent Authority was justified to forfeit the properties. It was also submitted that the appellants had filed certain additional evidences which were not earlier filed before the learned Competent Authority though they were given ample opportunity to be heard by him before passing order under Section 7 o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m should be taken on record. MP-67/BOM/2013 (Addl. Evi.) & MP-68/BOM/2013 (Addl. Evi.) 11. The first is an application dated 5th March, 2013 seeking production of additional evidence. Copy of the application along with the documents filed with the application were ordered to be served upon the learned authorized representative of the respondent and in the hearing before this Tribunal on 18th November, 2013, the learned authorized representative of the respondent sought time to file the reply. He was given six weeks time to file the reply with an advance copy to the learned authorized representative of appellant/applicant. Another application bearing MP-68/BOM/2013, dated 4th October, 2013 was also filed seeking production of additional evidence. However, along with the application no additional documents or other evidence were filed. However, notice was issued to the respondent and Shri Siddhartha Mazumdar, Inspecting Officer accepted notice and sought time to file the reply. Reply/Written submission dated 28th July, 2014 was filed on behalf of the respondent and the applicant had also filed rejoinder refuting the pleas and contentions raised in the written submission. In th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... CIT - (1998) 229 ITR 383 (S.C.) = 1998 (99) E.L.T. 200 (S.C.), Mohan Dairy v. UOI - (2007) 163 Taxman 279 (All.) and the Gujarat High Court decision in the case of Nazir Ahmedd Usmangani Digmar v. Competent Authority were relied upon. It has further been submitted that despite the fact that the Competent Authority was informed about the revocation of the detention order, the show cause notice was issued under section 6 of the Act without any investigation. In support thereof the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Kamal Kumar v. Union of India & Ors W.P.(C) 2276/1996 (Delhi) and this Tribunal's decision in the case of Shri Ranchhodbhai Bhagwanbhai Tandel v. Competent Authority have been relied upon. We note that in his reply dated 28-7-2014 the authorized representative for the respondent has repelled the additional ground taken by the appellants/applicants. At the time of final hearing on 15-1-2015 at Camp Udaipur before us the learned authorized representative for the appellants did not press this ground. We are therefore, not expressing any opinion on this point. 13. Perusal of record reveals that reply has been filed on behalf of respondent first through let....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....10. Since AP-1 was stationed at Dubai, UAE the relevant documents in support of the contention that the properties in question were purchased/acquired out of known & legal sources could not be furnished before the ld. Competent Authority. However, the same have now been collected and with your Honours permission would like to present them by way of additional evidences. These evidences would establish the fact that the properties in question were acquired from known and legal sources and are in the form of affidavit, bank passbooks, agricultural sale bills, certificates from institutions regarding the sale of milk, pass port copies, copies of the IT returns, copies of account, partnership deeds, challans evidencing the taxes paid etc. The above evidences would clearly establish the source of investment in the property being known and legal sources and it is therefore requested that the properties in question may kindly be released." Apart from the aforesaid reasons for not filing the evidence before the Competent Authority, the appellants in their affidavit dated 19-11-2012 also stated the following - "In view of the reasons stated herein above, now to produce additional evi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es, 1977 propose to furnish additional evidences and hereby make this affidavit in support of the application for the admission of Additional Evidences." 5. In view of the aforesaid application, the Hon'ble Tribunal directed respondent to the response to the documents filed along with the application vide order dated 4-2-2014. 6. The application of the appellant is examined and the reasons given by the appellant for not adducing evidences before the respondent are found genuine, the appellant filed various documents as additional evidence viz. certificates from various co-op. society showing their agriculture income, accounts maintained by co-op. society showing crop sold and payment made to the APs through the society. All these evidences have been sent to the concern co-op. society for verification. The concerned society verified the documents as true and certified that the documents were issued by them. 7. All the evidences were examined by respondent property-wise finding are enumerated as under :- IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES : (A) Agriculture land at Number 250, Village : Kudiyana, Olpad, Surat : In the additional evidence the appellants claimed by submitting an ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 14,999/- 107-A 15-11-2001 Rs. 20,000/- Total amount invested : Rs. 54,998/- The appellant claimed that he was a Government employee from 1970 to 2009 and in support of his contention he submitted a certificate from the department of Animal Husbandary and his salary certificate, apart from the earnings out of his employment with the government department the appellant claimed that he have been holding agriculture land he received from inheritance as well as purchased by him and from that piece of land he also has agriculture income and in support of his contention he submitted copy of account maintained in The Asnad group group co. op. cotton sale and seed supply soc. Ltd, Olpad where he used to sale his crop, the account submitted shows that the appellant has an average income of Rs. 18,000/- to 20,000/- per annum from crop selling, these accounts were sent to the Co. Op. Society for verification and they certify that the accounts submitted are true and issued by their society. The appellant claimed that the aforesaid impugned land were purchased from his own savings from his salary and agricultural income, in support of his contention the appellant submitted provident fun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....um of Rs. 125,000/- has been deposited on 2-11-2007 through MT (money transfer), which is claimed to have been the money withdrawn from the account in National Bank of Dubai and sent in NRE account through money transfer via Bank of Baroda's Dubai Branch. As the appellant also submitted copy of statement of NRE account in Bank of Baroda which corroborates that a sum of Rs. 125,000/- has been deposited through MT, hence the same can be treated as legally earned income of the appellant. (B) Deposit of Rs. 1,469/- in A/c No. 2004179 2015747 in Bank of Baroda, Dumas Branch, Surat and Deposite of Rs. 3286/- in Bank of Baroda. The appellant claimed that the bank account No. 2004179 2015747 was opened in the year 1995 and it was operated last on 2006 and at that time the balance in the a/c was Rs. 1395/- . The appellant claims that apart from his business income in Dubai he has ample agriculture income and in support of his contention he submitted accounts and certificate issued by the Shree Sayan Vibhag Sahakari Khand (sugar) Udyog Mandali Ltd., Sayan, these accounts were sent to the Co. Op. Society for verification and they certify that the accounts submitted are true and issued ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of Baroda : The appellant claimed that her husband is working in Dubai as sales man in textile market since last 8 years. She is giving tuitions and doing minor tailoring work and earning 4000-5000 per month and apart from the aforesaid small income she received gifts on various occasions which she saved and deposited in her SB account. The amount she saved were deposited in SB A/c opened on 2-7-2005, out of her deposits in saving bank account she made an FDR of Rs. 20,000/- on 3-10-2005, which can be corroborated from the copy of passbook she submitted. However, all the APs gave evidences of their income but the AP-8 did not submitted any such evidence, perusal of her SB account shows she got deposit of Rs. 20123/- on 3-10-2005 and out of this deposit she made the FDR, thereafter she got deposit of Rs. 10,000/-, Rs. 25,000/-, Rs. 20,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- on 2-1-2006, 26-5-2006, 17-8-2006 and 4-6-2009, for which she has no explanation except her claim of income from giving tuition, tailoring work and gifts received on various occasions. The balance of SB account was Rs. 14407/- on 2-7-2009 which was forfeited. However as the allegation in SAFEMA case is always that the source of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lls within the definition of proviso (i) to (iv) and difficult to come to a logical conclusion whether SAFEMA would be applicable to the AP or not. As the Averment is not supported with the required document, i.e. revocation order cannot be accepted the same required to be rejected. What is stated hereinabove is true and correct to the best of my knowledge information and belief, and I believe the same to be true and correct. 14. The appellants have also filed rejoinder to the reply filed by the respondent enclosing therewith the copy of the letter dated 3-9-2014 from the Govt. of Maharashtra. In the said letter, which was in response to an RTI application by the AP-1, it has been stated that due to a fire, mishap on 21st June, 2012 all the records relating to COFEPOSA matters got destroyed, and hence their inability to furnish copy of documents sought by the applicant. 15. The aforementioned deposition by the learned authorized representative for the respondent very fairly clinches the issue whether or not the applications for additional evidences should be allowed or not. After careful perusal of all the submissions and documents we are satisfied that the Competent ....