K.M.KATHEEJA Vs. APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short facts of the case are as follows:-

(2.) It was submitted that in the course of assessment for the year 1970-71, her husband was called upon by the income tax officer to explain the source of his investment and other funds, which he did and his explanations were accepted and assessment was completed. All the funds, properties, incomes and investments have been duly accounted and were properly explained in the course of assessment proceedings. The various firms were also registered under the Income Tax Act.

(3.) The petitioner submits that neither she nor her husband was involved in any business relating to or involving the Customs or Central Excise Act or the FERA. While this was so, in the year 1972, a few bales of yarn were found in a godown which belonged to M/s.Patel Volkart, a reputed company. The godown was alleged to have been taken on rent by one K.A.Ahmed. It was alleged that one Husain had made a deposition to the effect that Ahmed had introduced him to Patel Volkart and that the petitioner's husband had an interest in the transaction. It was submitted that apart from the aforesaid alleged statement, there was nothing to indicate that the petitioner's husband had any connection with the aforesaid transaction. Despite his persistent assurances that he was not in any way concerned or connected with the said transaction, he was detained under the COFEPOSA on the basis of the above transaction. It was submitted that the petitioner's husband could not challenge the detention as it was emergency period and that he was released from detention immediately after lifting of the emergency. It was submitted that on the basis of the above detention of her husband under the COFEPOSA, her husband was considered to be a 'person' under the provision of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). pursuant to the above position, the second respondent issued a notice to her husband on the 27th November 1976 stating that he has, on the basis of relevant information available to him, reason to believe that the properties set out in the annexure to the statement, held by her husband or his behalf, are illegally acquired properties. Within the meaning of Clause (i) of Sub Section (c) of Section 3 of the Act. It was submitted that the petitioner's husband was hence required to indicate within 35 days of the receipt of the notice, sources of his income earnings or funds out of which or by means of which, he had acquired the aforesaid properties. He was also required to indicate the evidence on which he relied on and other relevant information and particulars and to show cause why the properties should not be declared to be illegally acquired property and forfeited to the Central Government under the Act.