TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1991 (4) TMI 119
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rom Manipur. Rupchand Prasad, husband of the appellant, belongs to Assam and his name was given in the list. On receipt of information from the Customs authorities, investigation was initiated by the Competent Authority appointed under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (hereafter "the Act"), in 1981. During the course of the proceedings against Rupchand Prasad, it was detected that the appellant as well had acquired some immovable property. The appellant being the wife of Rupchand Prasad is an affected person in terms of section 2(2)(c) of the Act. Further investigation in the case of the appellant revealed that she had also acquired movable assets of a value not commensurate with her known s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rity has not held that the properties ordered to be forfeited were acquired by the appellant with illegal gains from smuggling activities and, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. We are not impressed with this contention. The preamble to the Act reads : "An Act to provide for the forfeiture of illegally acquired properties of smugglers and foreign exchange manipulators and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. WHEREAS for the effective prevention of smuggling activities and foreign exchange manipulations which are having a deleterious effect on the national economy, it is necessary to deprive persons engaged in such activities and manipulators of their ill-gotten gains ; AND WHEREAS such person....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ome from legal sources. The argument proceeds that the Competent Authority thereby indirectly came to the conclusion that the appellant acquired the properties with the illegal income of her husband. In the face of this finding, the true owner of the properties is her husband to whom a notice under section 6(1) must have been issued. The Competent Authority did not issue such notice to him and, therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained. We find no merit in this contention. The appellant is, admittedly, the owner of the properties. It is hardly relevant whether she acquired the same with her own income or with that of her husband. It is not the case of the appellant that the owner of the properties is her husband. The appellant claim....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r on May 27, 1988, but again without any response. On February 23, 1989, a notice under section 7(1) of the Act to adduce evidence was sent to her by registered post, but it could not be served. The Competent Authority sent another such notice on June 6, 1989, and the same was served by affixation on June 13, 1989, through the Inspector of Income-tax, Nalbari. It is in response to this substituted service effected on her on June 13, 1989, that she put in a petition-stating that as the appeal filed by her husband against the order of the Competent Authority has been accepted by the Appellate Tribunal on April 26, 1989, the proceedings against her be dropped. It will be seen that the proceedings initiated against the appellant by issuance ....