The burden of proof under SAFEMA lies with the affected person, and failure to discharge this burden justifies property forfeiture.

ORDER :

(Order of the Court was made by M.JOTHIRAMAN , J.)

Under assail is the order dated 12.07.1999 passed in FPA.18/MDS/96 on the file of the Appellate Tribunal for Forfeited Property.

2. The unsuccessful appellant before the Appellate Tribunal have preferred the present writ petition.

3. During the pendency of the present writ petition, the writ petitioner died. Thereafter, his Legal Representatives were substituted.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was characterised as a person affected on the basis of that he was detained under the COFEPOSA Act during Emergency time in the year 1975. At that time, due to suspension of the fundamental rights, the petitioner had no remedy of challenging the said detention. A notice under Section 6(1) of the Act was issued 31.3.1976 by the competent authority. The entire Act and its application was stayed originally by this Hon'ble Court and later by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India pending consideration of the Constitutional validity of the Act. After the Constitutional validity was determined in 1994, the matters were taken up for hearing on merits. The authority had passed an order on 8.12.1995, forfeiting all the properties of the petitioner, for which, notice under Section 6(1) was originally issued.

5. The petitioner states the properties sought to be forfeited including the house property at 78, Waltax Road, Chennai, which was purchased on 20.4.1972 for a total consideration of Rs.1,24,969/-. The second property was a land purchased in 1968 for Rs.1,903/-.

6. The petitioner had been doing business from 1945 in hosiery and from 1950 onwards, he had started his own business in the name "Shobhagmal Mahaveer Chand" in Villupuram, Tamilnadu. The petitioner was an Income tax Assessee from the year 1955 onwards. From the year 1972/73, he had always been assessed to Wealth Tax. The petitioner had also been a Partner in the firms viz., Srimal Textiles, Kamadhenu and Ranka & Co. The records discloses that in the said three businesses, the petitioner had made investments of Rs.4,000/-, Rs.5,000/- and Rs.4,879/- respectively in the years 1952/53, 1954/55 and 1955/56. The acquisition of the assets of the house property was disclosed in the Income Tax return in the year 1973/74 and assessment has been made on that basis. Again in the Wealth Tax Return for the Assessment Year 1973/74, the assessment has been disclosed and tax paid thereon. The Competent Authority had ignored the assessment orders of the Income Tax and Wealth Tax Authorities. The petitioner started the business and was doing business under the name Sobaghamal Sri Sri Mal. The competent authority conducted enquiry after 32 years later. There were no two sets of account books as has been mentioned in the order of the Competent Authority. Unfortunately, the competent authority had not sought for clarification after he had the authorities. The order of the Appellate Authority is exfacie erroneous, violation of natural justice and failed to adhere the principles, which require an Appellate authority to independently analyse and evaluate the evidence on record. The case was adjourned before the Appellate Tribunal at New Delhi in July 1999. Thereafter, the hearing was posted at its camp sitting in Bhuvaneswar, Orissa State. The amount of Rs.75,000/- for acquisition of the property had come from borrowal and not from business. In fact, under the Income Tax Act, the petitioner as against the assessment, has filed an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal on a question of law and the matter was remitted to the Income Tax Officer to redo the assessment. The