Hameed Abdul Kader v. Appellate Tribunal for Forfeited Property & Ors.

brother T.S.A.Omar Farook, who was a detenu. The original recordsrelating to the case were circulated by the learned AdditionalCentral Government Standing Counsel and perused by this Court.2. The writ petition was admitted on 30.4.1999. Pending the writpetition, an interim-stay was granted initially for a period of eightweeks, which was subsequently extended from time to time on24.6.1999, 8.9.1999, 14.12.1999 and finally on 25.1.2000 with thefollowing direction:"Interim stay to continue until further orders oncondition that the petitioner shall file an affidavit ofundertaking that he will not alienate, encumber or in anymanner transfer the rights and interest of the propertybefore this Court within two weeks from today."The second respondent has filed a counter affidavit dated 19.8.1999.3. The facts leading to the forfeiture of the petitioner'sproperty are as follows:-The petitioner purchased half share of the house propertysituated at No.4, Vannier Street, Chennai -1 by a registered saledeed dated 21.3.1966. The competent authority under section 3(b) readwith Section 5 of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators(Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (for short, 'SAFEMA') recordedreasons on 25.5.1977 as found in his proceedings in paragraphs 4 and5, which read as follows:Para 4. I have therefore reason to believe that the followingassets are illegally acquired properties:-i.House property bearing door No.4, Vaniar Street,Madras.ii.Amount due from T.S.A.Hameed Abdul Kader andT.S.A.Omar Farook (joint rent account).iii.Right, title and interest in proprietory business ofHameed Abdul Khader (firm).iv.Amount due from T.S.A.Ameer Hamsa.Para 5. Issue notice under section 6(1) of the Act accordingly.4. Pursuant to the said procedure, a forfeiture notice wasissued by the competent authority dated 16.7.1977. The petitionergave a reply dated 24.8.1977. The petitioner stated that he wasneither a smuggler nor a foreign exchange manipulator. He alsosubmitted that there was neither any adjudication nor proceedings https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ under the Foreign Exchange Act or under the Customs Act against thepetitioner. Since the second respondent did not give the basis ofthe relevant information or the material under which the notice wasissued, the show-cause notice was invalid. He also submitted that thesource under which the properties were purchased was intimated to theIncome Tax Department, which had also accepted the returns filed bythe petitioner. 5. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a writ petition beingW.P.No.3411 of 1977 challenging the vires of the SAFEMA and theproceedings of the second respondent was stayed pending disposal ofthe writ petition. 6. In the meanwhile, an order dated 05.3.1977 was passed by thecompetent authority against the COFEPOSA detenu Omar Farookforfeiting his properties under the SAFEMA. The said decision wasalso confirmed by the Appellate Tribunal by an order dated 14.3.1978.7. The writ petition filed by the petitioner came to be disposedof on 18.7.1994 by a Division Bench with a direction to the competentauthority to continue and complete the proceedings by November 1995.The said order came to be passed by the Division Bench as thevalidity of the SAFEMA was upheld by the Supreme Court in AttorneyGeneral for India -vs- Amratlal Prajivandas and others reported in JT1994 (3) S.C.583. 8. The petitioner submitted a written brief dated 06.4.1995before the competent authority. This Court further extended the timefor the competent authority to pass orders. Thereafter the petitioneralso filed another written brief dated 17.7.1995. The competentauthority by an impugned order dated 24.11.1995 directed theforfeiture of the petitioner's property as notified in the showcausenotice extracted above. 9. Against this order passed under section 7(1) of SAFEMA, thepetitioner preferred an appeal to the first respondent appellateTribunal under section 12 of SAFEMA. The petitioner's appeal wastaken on file as F.P.A.No.3/MDS/96. The Tribunal though agreed withthe contention that the income tax assessment could be taken asevidence for source of income was valid and that is also an importantpiece of evidence.10. In paragraphs 9 and 16, the Tribunal recorded the followingfinding:- Para 9.... However, if the income tax assessment orders arethe only evidence available with the appellant, thenthe Competent Authority has every right to lookbeyond the evidence so generated and see whether thesources of income from which the appellant was able https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ to save so much and invest in such a huge proportionwas from legitimate sources or from illegalactivities."Para 16..... here again the only evidence relied upon by theappellant in respect of his claim of withdrawal ofcash is that it had been mentioned as a foot note inthe statement of income filed before the Income TaxOfficer. The Department of Income Tax had beenutilised by the appellant for creating evidence insupport of claim for which the appellant has noindependent evidence whatsoever. If such a businesswas being carried out on a regular basis by theappellant then there should have been a bank accountand this huge withdrawal should have been reflectedin such a bank account. However, no such evidence wasavailable with the appellant and even the date ofclosure of the firm and the amount of credit as onsuch date could not be proved before the CompetentAuthority". (Emphasis Added)11. On the basis of the rejection of the proof brought in by thepetitioner, the Tribunal confirmed the order of the competentauthority in respect of the forfeiture regarding the half share ofthe house property as well as the amount lying in joint account ofthe petitioner and the detenu Omar Farook. In respect of theforfeiture of the cash asset in the proprietory business of the AbdulKhader firm and also the amount of Rs.1000/- due from Ameer Hamsa,the Tribunal found that the genuineness of the claim was notestablished. 12. The petitioner challenged this order in the writ petition onthe ground that the satisfaction of the competent authority when herecords reasons before issuance of the showcause notice, he must havereasons to believe that the properties in the hands of the relatedperson of the detenu must have been acquired out of the tainted fundsobtained from the smuggler. Otherwise, the application of section 3(c) defining the term ''illegally acquired property'' will not besatisfied. It was also submitted that when the competent authorityrecorded reasons he has not explained the materials under which hecame to such a conclusion for initiating the proceedings. 13. Under section 18 of the Act, the competent authority hasthe power to require certain officers to exercise certain powers tocause or conduct an enquiry, investigation or survey in respect ofany person, place, property, assets, documents, books of account orother relevant matters. Sections 18(2) and 18(3) read as follows:''18(2) For the purposes referred to in sub-section (1), the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ competent authority may, having regard to the nature of theinquiry, investigation or survey, require an officer of theIncome-tax Department to conduct or cause to be conductedsuch inquiry, investigation or survey.18(3) Any officer of Income-tax Department who is conductingor is causing to be conducted any inquiry, investigation orsurvey required to be conducted under sub-section (2), may,for the purpose of such inquiry, investigation or survey,exercise any power (including the power to authorise theexercise of any power) which may be exercised by him for anypurpose under the Income Tax Act,1961 (43 of 1961), and theprovisions of the said Act shall, so far as may be, applyaccordingly."14. The petitioner in his explanation had given detailsregarding purchase of properties, loans from creditors, remittancesreceived under the NDRS, his half share in the house propertypurchased separately, the expenditure incurred in the renovation ofthe house property, investment in business, etc. The petitioner alsosubmitted returns under the Income Tax Act, 1961 as well as under theWealth Tax Act, 1957 and he produced the assessments made for theyears 1962-63 to 1977-78. The petitioner had also made for the year1966-67 declaration under the voluntary disclosure scheme disclosinghis income and wealth and such amounts disclose under the VDS has tobe credited to the books of account relating to any source of incometo which it may relate and such income is not to be included in thetotal income for any assessment year in respect of which suchdeclaration has been made. The petitioner's disclosure under the VDSwas made before the show-cause notice was issued. If for any reason,the competent authority had a doubt regarding the entries in thebooks of account or the tax returns made, he should have caused anenquiry by taking advantage of section 18(2) and 18(3) of the SAFEMA.A reference was also made to Article 261(1) of the Constitution,which reads as follows:-''261. Public acts, records and judicial proceedings.- (1)Full faith and credit shall be given throughout theterritory of India to public acts, records and judicialproceedings of the Union and of every State."15. It was also stated that under section 15(b) of the SAFEMA,both the competent authority and the appellate Tribunal has powers ofa Civil Court in requiring the discovery and production of documents.Therefore, if they had any doubt about the genuineness of the paymentmade by the creditors, the respondents should have summoned therecords and verified the veracity of the claim made by thepetitioner.16. In reply to these allegations, in the counter affidavit, inparagraph 8, it has been averred as follows:- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Para 8. ''.... Though the petitioner has explained his sources,the second respondent has not accepted the licitnature, since none of the claims have been establishedwith any documentary evidence. It is not correct to saythat since, the Income Tax Authorities in theirproceedings had accepted the source explained by himhas to be accepted by the second respondent too in theSAFEMA proceedings. In the proceedings under IncomeTax, the Income Tax Officer is not required to go intothe legality of the source whereas under theproceedings initiated under this Act, the person hasnot only to establish his source but its legalitytoo....."17. It was also submitted that the detention made againstT.S.A.Omar Farook was upheld by the Division Bench of this Court inW.P.No.2225 of 1997 dated 15.9.1994.18. Mr.K.C.Rajappa, learned counsel for the petitioner contendedthat the Supreme Court while upholding the validity of SAFEMA in thejudgment in Attorney General for India v. Amratlal Prajivandas,reported in (1994) 5 SCC 54, dealt with the question of applicationof the Act to the relatives and associates of the detenu wasviolative of Article 14,19 and 21 of the Constitution. This issueframed as a fifth issue by the nine Judge Bench was answered inparagraph 44, which reads as follows:-Para 44. It is contended by the counsel for the petitionersthat extending the provisions of SAFEMA to therelatives, associates and other ‘holders’ is again acase of overreaching or of over-breadth, as it may becalled — a case of excessive regulation. It issubmitted that the relatives or associates of a personfalling under clause (a) or clause (b) of Section 2(2)of SAFEMA may have acquired properties of their own,may be by illegal means but there is no reason whythose properties be forfeited under SAFEMA justbecause they are related to or are associates of thedetenu or convict, as the case may be. It is pointedout that the definition of ‘relative’ in Explanation(2) and of ‘associates’ in Explanation (3) are so wideas to bring in a person even distantly related orassociated with the convict/detenu, within the net ofSAFEMA, and once he comes within the net, all hisillegally acquired properties can be forfeited underthe Act. In our opinion, the said contention is basedupon a misconception. SAFEMA is directed towardsforfeiture of “illegally acquired properties” of aperson falling under clause (a) or clause (b) ofSection 2(2). The relatives and associates are brought https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ in only for the purpose of ensuring that the illegallyacquired properties of the convict or detenu, acquiredor kept in their names, do not escape the net of theAct. It is a well-known fact that persons indulging inillegal activities screen the properties acquired fromsuch illegal activity in the names of their relativesand associates. Sometimes they transfer suchproperties to them, may be, with an intent to transferthe ownership and title. In fact, it is immaterial howsuch relative or associate holds the properties ofconvict/detenu — whether as a benami or as a merename-lender or as a bona fide transferee for value orin any other manner. He cannot claim those propertiesand must surrender them to the State under the Act.Since he is a relative or associate, as defined by theAct, he cannot put forward any defence once it isproved that that property was acquired by the detenu —whether in his own name or in the name of hisrelatives and associates. It is to counteract theseveral devices that are or may be adopted by personsmentioned in clauses (a) and (b) of Section 2(2) thattheir relatives and associates mentioned in clauses(c) and (d) of the said sub-section are also broughtwithin the purview of the Act. The fact of theirholding or possessing the properties of convict/detenufurnishes the link between the convict/detenu and hisrelatives and associates. Only the properties of theconvict/detenu are sought to be forfeited, whereverthey are. The idea is to reach his properties inwhosoever’s name they are kept or by whosoever theyare held. The independent properties of relatives andfriends, which are not traceable to theconvict/detenu, are not sought to be forfeited nor arethey within the purview of SAFEMA**. We may proceed toexplain what we say. Clause (c) speaks of a relativeof a person referred to in clause (a) or clause (b)(which speak of a convict or a detenu). Similarly,clause (d) speaks of associates of such convict ordetenu. If we look to Explanation (3) which specifieswho the associates referred to in clause (d) are, thematter becomes clearer. ‘Associates’ means — (i) anyindividual who had been or is residing in theresidential premises (including outhouses) of suchperson [‘such person’ refers to the convict or detenu,as the case may be, referred to in clause (a) orclause (b)]; (ii) any individual who had been or ismanaging the affairs or keeping the accounts of suchconvict/detenu; (iii) any association of persons, bodyof individuals, partnership firm or private company ofwhich such convict/detenu had been or is a member, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ partner or director; (iv) any individual who had beenor is a member, partner or director of an associationof persons, body of individuals, partnership firm orprivate company referred to in clause (iii) at anytime when such person had been or is a member, partneror director of such association of persons, body ofindividuals, partnership firm or private company; (v)any person who had been or is managing the affairs orkeeping the accounts of any association of persons,body of individuals, partnership firm or privatecompany referred to in clause (iii); (vi) the trusteeof any trust where (a) the trust has been created bysuch convict/detenu; or (b) the value of the assetscontributed by such convict/detenu to the trustamounts, on the date of contribution not less than 20%of the value of the assets of the trust on that date;and (vii) where the competent authority, for reasonsto be recorded in writing, considers that anyproperties of such convict/detenu are held on hisbehalf by any other person, such other person. Itwould thus be clear that the connecting link or thenexus, as it may be called, is the holding of propertyor assets of the convict/detenu or traceable to suchdetenu/convict. Section 4 is equally relevant in thiscontext. It declares that “as from the commencement ofthis Act, it shall not be lawful for any person towhom this Act applies to hold any illegally acquiredproperty either by himself or through any other personon his behalf”. All such property is liable to beforfeited. The language of this section is indicativeof the ambit of the Act. Clauses (c) and (d) inSection 2(2) and the Explanations (2) and (3)occurring therein shall have to be construed andunderstood in the light of the overall scheme andpurpose of the enactment. The idea is to forfeit theillegally acquired properties of the convict/detenuirrespective of the fact that such properties are heldby or kept in the name of or screened in the name ofany relative or associate as defined in the said twoExplanations. The idea is not to forfeit theindependent properties of such relatives or associateswhich they may have acquired illegally but only toreach the properties of the convict/detenu orproperties traceable to him, wherever they are,ignoring all the transactions with respect to thoseproperties. By way of illustration, take a case wherea convict/detenu purchases a property in the name ofhis relative or associate — it does not matter whetherhe intends such a person to be a mere name-lender orwhether he really intends that such person shall be https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the real owner and/or possessor thereof — or giftsaway or otherwise transfers his properties in favourof any of his relatives or associates, or purports tosell them to any of his relatives or associates — inall such cases, all the said transactions will beignored and the properties forfeited unless theconvict/detenu or his relative/associate, as the casemay be, establishes that such property or propertiesare not “illegally acquired properties” within themeaning of Section 3(c). In this view of the matter,there is no basis for the apprehension that theindependently acquired properties of such relativesand associates will also be forfeited even if they arein no way connected with the convict/detenu. So far asthe holders (not being relatives and associates)mentioned in Section 2(2)(e) are concerned, they aredealt with on a separate footing. If such personproves that he is a transferee in good faith forconsideration, his property — even though purchasedfrom a convict/detenu — is not liable to be forfeited.It is equally necessary to reiterate that the burdenof establishing that the properties mentioned in theshow-cause notice issued under Section 6, and whichare held on that date by a relative or an associate ofthe convict/detenu, are not the illegally acquiredproperties of the convict/detenu, lies upon suchrelative/associate. He must establish that the saidproperty has not been acquired with the monies orassets provided by the detenu/convict or that they infact did not or do not belong to such detenu/convict.We do not think that Parliament ever intended to saythat the properties of all the relatives andassociates, may be illegally acquired, will beforfeited just because they happen to be the relativesor associates of the convict/detenu. There ought to bethe connecting link between those properties and theconvict/detenu, the burden of disproving which, asmentioned above, is upon the relative/associate. Inthis view of the matter, the apprehension andcontention of the petitioners in this behalf must beheld to be based upon a mistaken premise. The bringingin of the relatives and associates or of the personsmentioned in clause (e) of Section 2(2) is thusneither discriminatory nor incompetent apart from theprotection of Article 31-B." (Emphasis Added)19. Then reference was made to the judgment of the Supreme Courtin Fatima Mohd. Amin (Smt.) (dead) through LRs. v. Union of India https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ reported in (2003) 7 SCC 436, for the purpose of showing that theprovision for confiscation has to be strictly construed. Reliance wasplaced to the following passages found in paragraphs 7 to 9, whichmay be usefully reproduced below:-Para 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties andgone through the reasons recorded by the competentauthority along with the show-cause notice. We do notfind any averments to the effect that the propertyacquired by the appellant is a benami property of herson or the same was illegally acquired from her son.Para 8. The contents of the said notices, even if taken attheir face value do not disclose any reason warrantingaction against the appellant. No allegation whatsoeverhas been made to this effect that there exists anylink or nexus between the property sought to beforfeited and the illegally acquired money of thedetenu(s).Para 9. As the condition precedent for initiation of theproceedings under SAFEMA did not exist, the impugnedorders of forfeiture cannot be sustained. In that viewof the matter, the appeals deserve to be allowed. Theorder under challenge is set aside." 20. The judgment in Fatima Mohd. Amin's case came to befollowed in a subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in P.P.Abdullaand another -vs- Competent Authority and others reported in (2007)2 SCC 510. A reference was made to the following passages found inparagraphs 6 to 9, which may be usefully reproduced below:-Para 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has invited ourattention to Section 6(1) of the Act which states:“6. (1) If, having regard to the value of theproperties held by any person to whom this Actapplies, either by himself or through any otherperson on his behalf, his known sources of income,earnings or assets, and any other information ormaterial available to it as a result of action takenunder Section 18 or otherwise, the competentauthority has reason to believe (the reasons forsuch belief to be recorded in writing) that all orany of such properties are illegally acquiredproperties, it may serve a notice upon such person(hereinafter referred to as the person affected)calling upon him within such time as may bespecified in the notice, which shall not beordinarily less than thirty days, to indicate the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ sources of his income, earnings or assets, out ofwhich or by means of which he has acquired suchproperty, the evidence on which he relies and otherrelevant information and particulars, and to showcause why all or any of such properties, as the casemay be, should not be declared to be illegallyacquired properties and forfeited to the CentralGovernment under this Act.” Para 7. Learned counsel submitted that it has been expresslystated in Section 6(1) that the reason to believe of thecompetent authority must be recorded in writing. In thecounter-affidavit it has also been stated in para 8 thatthe reasons in the notice under Section 6(1) wererecorded in writing. In our opinion this is notsufficient. Whenever the statute requires reasons to berecorded in writing, then in our opinion it is incumbenton the respondents to produce the said reasons beforethe court so that the same can be scrutinised in orderto verify whether they are relevant and germane or not.This can be done either by annexing the copy of thereasons along with the counter-affidavit or by quotingthe reasons somewhere in the counter-affidavit.Alternatively, if the notice itself contains the reasonof belief, that notice can be annexed to the counter-affidavit or quoted in it. However, all that has notbeen done in this case.Para 8. It must be stated that an order of confiscation is avery stringent order and hence a provision forconfiscation has to be construed strictly, and thestatute must be strictly complied with, otherwise theorder becomes illegal.Para 9. In our opinion, the facts of the case are covered bythe decision of this Court in Fatima Mohd. Amin v. Unionof India1. In the present case the contents of thenotice, even if taken on face value, do not disclose anysufficient reason warranting the impugned action againstthe appellant as, in our opinion, the conditionprecedent for exercising the power under the Act did notexist. Hence, the impugned orders cannot be sustained. "21. A Division Bench of this Court (to which I am a party), videits decision in V.Mohan -vs- Income-tax Officer, Kumbakonam reportedin 2008 Crl.L.J.2821 while dealing with the scope of Section 6 of theSAFEMA, in paragraph 16 observed as follows:-Para 16.... There is no doubt that any action taken under the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Act has got far reaching consequence. The ostensibleowner of a property is likely to be deprived of theproperty. The procedure contemplated in such Actcontaining provisions relating to forfeiture ofproperties standing in the name of a relative isrequired to be complied with strictly in accordancewith the provisions. Where the method of issuance ofnotice and subsequent forfeiture have been laid downin clear terms by the statutes, the authorities arerequired to follow the procedure. This cannot beequated with a case of mere prejudice....." 22. On behalf of the respondents, it was contended that thedisclosure under the Voluntary Disclosure Scheme cannot have anybearing on the proceedings initiated under SAFEMA. Reliance was madeto the judgment in Tekchand and others -vs- Competent Authorityreported in (1993) 3 SCC 84. Reliance was placed on paragraph 13 ofthe judgment, which may be usefully reproduced below:-Para 13. So far as the contention based upon Sections 11 and 16of Voluntary Disclosure Act is concerned we havealready pointed out, while setting out the saidprovisions that the immunity conferred thereunder is ofa limited character and that it is not an absolute oruniversal immunity. The immunity cannot be extendedbeyond the confines specified by the said provisions.There is also no reason to presume that the Parliamentintended to extend any immunity to smugglers andmanipulators of foreign exchange who are proceededagainst under enactments other than those mentioned inSections 11 and 16 of the Voluntary Disclosure Act. Sofar as the argument that the authorities under the Acthave not properly considered the explanation offered bythe appellants and the material produced by them, wemust say that we are unable to agree with the same.Both the competent authority and the appellateauthority have considered the same and held against theappellants. We see no reason to interfere with theconcurrent findings in this appeal under Article 136 ofthe Constitution. We are equally unable to agree withthe learned counsel for the appellants that thefindings recorded by the authorities are eitherperverse or that they are based on no evidence. Thatthe authorities acted with due care and caution isevident from the fact that with respect to one of theimmovable properties the authorities were of theopinion that the failure to explain pertains only to apart of the income/assets and accordingly invokedSection 9 and imposed a fine instead of forfeiting thesame." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

23. However, it has to be seen that in the present case, thepetitioner had produced the income tax assessment for the relevantyear and in the return for the year 1969-70, the loan received forthe purchase of the property has been mentioned. This has beenscrutinised by the Auditor and it has been countersigned by theIncome-tax Officer for the relevant year. To label such a transactionas unbelievable ''as the Department of Income-tax had been utilisedby the appellant for creating evidence in support of his claim'' asquoted by the Tribunal is not only uncalledfor in the absence of anyevidence to that effect. Neither the competent authority nor theappellate Tribunal made use of the officers of the I.T. Department ascontemplated under section 6(1) read with Section 18(2)of the SAFEMA.If they had utilised the service of the I.T.Department, which isanother wing of the Government of India, there would have been nonecessity to come up with such a sweeping conclusions thereby castinga slur on the another wing of the Central Government. The remarksmade by the Appellate Tribunal is uncalledfor and not borne out byrecords. It must be stated that these entries which are found in theI.T. Returns were made long before the showcause notice was preparedunder section 6(1). 24. A Division Bench of this Court in Mohammed Hanifa -vs-Appellate Tribunal for Forfeited Property and another reported in(1995) Vol.211 ITR 589 dealt with the case of the competent authorityutilising the service of the Income Tax Officer as a Commission forfinding out the veracity of the claims made by persons aggrieved bythe notice issued under SAFEMA. The question came up forconsideration was when such Commissions are made and statements arerecorded before the ITO in terms of section 18 of the SAFEMA, whetherthe witnesses should once again depose before the competent authorityand whether the competent authority can discard the statement of theITO. 25. In the said decision, the Division Bench held as follows:-''We are of the view that when the Income-tax Officerappointed as Commission and on recording the evidence, hasopined that what the witness had deposed was true, the non-consideration of the same by the competent authority andthe Appellate Tribunal has vitiated the finding recorded bythem. Further, the property involved is not of great value,inasmuch as, it is stated that it is of the value ofRs.12,861 and out of this a sum of Rs.5,040 has been foundby both the authorities that it has been met from lawfulsources. Therefore, we are of the view that there is nojustification to remit the case after a lapse of 15 years.We, accordingly, hold that the petitioner has proved thathe has purchased the property in question by the amountobtained from lawful source. Hence, the forfeiture is not https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ warranted. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Theorders of the competent authority and the AppellateTribunal are quashed."26. Therefore, inasmuch as the respondents have not utilisedtheir power vested under Section 6(1) read with Section 18 of theSAFEMA in order to impeach the claim made by the petitioner byproducing the contemporaneous evidence in the form of income taxreturns for the relevant year. The finding recorded by therespondents that the properties which are sought to be forfeited areillegally acquired properties within the meaning of section 3(c)cannot be upheld.27. Hence, the writ petition stands allowed. However, there willbe no order as to costs.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarjsTo1. Appellate Tribunal for Forfeited Property, 4th Floor, Lok Nayak Bhawan,Khan Market, New Delhi-110 003.2. The Competent Authority, 'Utsav' No.64/1, G.N.Chetty Road, T.Nagar, Chennai-17. 1 CC To Mr..K.C.Rajappa, Advocate, SR NO.109431 CC To Mr.S.Haja Mohideen Gisthi, Advocate, SR NO.10648 W.P.No.7944 of 1999mbs(co)pmk/6.4.2009.