ORDER : 1. These petitions have been filed to calling for the records of the first respondent passed in F.P.A.Nos.48 & 49/MDS/95 dated 29.11.1999 and quash the same. The unsuccessful appellants before the Tribunal have preferred these writ petitions before this Court. Since the issues involved for the present writ petitions are one and the same and hence both the writ petitions were heard together and disposed of by this common order. Pending writ petitions, the petitioner died and her legal heirs were substituted as parties. 2. The case of the petitioners is as follows: The deceased first petitioner's husband late Sri.R.Yusuf Khan was arrested and detained under the provisions of maintenance of Internal Security Act and thereafter the first petitioner's husband was arrested under the provisions of Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities by an order dated 05.02.1976. The competent authority issued a notice dated 21.01.1978 under Section 6(1) of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred as SAFEMA). Calling her husband to show cause why the following items of property should not be forfeited to the Central Government: A. Held in the name of Yusuf Khan: (i) House property at Door No.19, Nadu-Swankara Street, Trichy. (ii) House property at Door NO.24-A, Nadu-Allimal Street, Trichy. (iii) Right, title and interest in the firm, M/s.Basha Jewellery, No.178, Big Bazar Street, Trichy including the capital and current accounts as on 31.03.1976. B. Held in the name of Pyari Ben: (iv) House property at Door No.8, Swankara Street, Trichy. (v) Land in Survey No.32/2 and 189/1, Thiruverumbur. (i) The deceased first petitioner's husband challenged of SAFEMA and the detention in W.P.No.3098 of 1978 and obtained stay of further proceedings. However, the validity of the Act was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The petitioner submitted detailed objection to the notices, the property bearing Door No.19, Nadu Swankara Street, Trichy was purchased on 07.10.1958 by the deceased first petitioner's husband for a sum of Rs.7,500/-. He was carrying on business in artificial diamond jewellery from 1942 onwards. The competent authority failed to consider that it was not possible in 1977 to produce the accounts from the year 1942 when the business was established to the year 1958 when the property was purchased. He was carrying on business in artificial diamond jewellery from 1942 onwards. The competent authority failed to consider that it was not possible in 1977 to produce the accounts from the year 1942 when the business was established to the year 1958 when the property was purchased. (ii) As far as the property bearing Door No.24-A, Allimal Street was concerned, it was explained and it was purchased for Rs.7,675/- including stamp charges by a sale deed dated 25.12.1967. The Income Tax Proceedings were submitted before the competent authority. The deceased first petitioner's husband explained that the property was purchased out of the income declared in the return for the assessment year 1968-69 in which a sum of Rs.11,850/- was shown as income. It may also pertinent to note that a loan of Rs.4,250/- had been taken and a loan of Rs.7,000/- on the mortgage of the property to one Smt.Sivakumari Ammal. (iii) Insofar as the fourth item of property bearing Door No.8, Swankara Street, Trichy was concerned, the petitioner had purchased the same on 12.02.1965 for a sum of Rs.5,000/-. The petitioner had saved Rs.3,000/- from out of earnings through rolling Beedis. A sum of Rs.2,000/- was contributed by her husband. The competent authority has held that her husband had not explained the source for savings of Rs.2,000/- due to past of time the accounts were not available. The notice was issued in 1977, whereas the purchase had taken place in 1965. (iv) The last property agricultural land was purchased by the petitioner in 1975 for a sum of Rs.5,400/-. The petitioner had explained before the competent authority by an order dated 29.03.1995 ordered the forfeiture of all the properties under Section 7(1) of SAFEMA. Two separate appeals were filed by the petitioner and her husband before the appellate tribunal in the year 1995 and pending the appeal the deceased first petitioner's husband died on 17.06.1998. Thereafter, their three daughters were impleaded as parties in the appeal. (v) Even while appeal was pending, the deceased first petitioner's husband had filed an application to receive additional evidence the appellate tribunal sought for comments from the Departmental Authorities, then the petitioner had filed an another affidavit along with the application to receive the additional evidence relating to the Income Tax Assessment Proceedings and orders. (v) Even while appeal was pending, the deceased first petitioner's husband had filed an application to receive additional evidence the appellate tribunal sought for comments from the Departmental Authorities, then the petitioner had filed an another affidavit along with the application to receive the additional evidence relating to the Income Tax Assessment Proceedings and orders. The appellate tribunal rejected the application on the erroneous ground that the documents were being sought to be filed after long number of years. The appellate tribunal dismissed the appeals vide order dated 29.11.1999, aggrieved over the same, the present writ petitions have been filed. 3. Mr.B.Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners would submit that the appellate tribunal committed serious error of law in rejecting the additional evidence solely on the ground of delay without considering the circumstances under which the same were not produced at the earliest point of time. The authorities have come to the conclusion on the basis of order of the Commissioner of Income Tax dated 26.05.1981 which was made under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act. The issue was relating to the assessment year 1968-69. The authorities have overlooked the fact that it was the revision under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act in which the amount involved is Rs. 3,389/-. He would submit that one of the property was purchased in 1958, another in 1965, the third in 1967 and the fourth in 1975. The authorities could not expect the first petitioner and her husband to preserve the books of accounts pertaining to transactions several years prior to the impugned notice. In fact the first petitioner's husband was a partner in Basha Jewellery besides the business in artificial diamond jewellery and earned business income and hence the other properties were purchased in and out of income. The adverse findings of the Income Tax Department ought not to have been taken as a ground to forfeit the properties without considering the facts and evidence in proper prospective under the provisions of SAFEMA and therefore the findings are bias. The petitioner had established that she had savings to an extent of Rs.3,000/- for the property which was purchased for a sum of Rs.5,000/-. The source from her husband was Rs.2,000/- and even if that was disbelieved. She was entitled to the property under Section 9 of the SAFEMA, which was not exercised by the authorities. The petitioner had established that she had savings to an extent of Rs.3,000/- for the property which was purchased for a sum of Rs.5,000/-. The source from her husband was Rs.2,000/- and even if that was disbelieved. She was entitled to the property under Section 9 of the SAFEMA, which was not exercised by the authorities. The learned senior counsel would submit that the 6(1) notice dated 21.01.1978 was issued after lapse of 20 years. It would be unfair within Article 21 of the Constitution of India, to require the person to produce account books, after 20 years. Even where there is no time limit the proceedings will have to be taken within a reasonable time. 4. The learned senior counsel to strengthen his contentions he has relied upon the following judgments: “1. Rupchand Prasad v. Competent Authority, (1989) 178 ITR 292 wherein it has been held that - “..... There is no gainsaying that running of a business and earning of profits are not entirely dependent upon the capital investment. To an extent, such investment may play a substantial role when sophisticated or highcost machineries are involved. In a mercantile business, where the initial investment was as low as Rs.5,000 and the present business runs into lakhs (the turnover of assessment year 1982-83 was Rs.4.6 lakhs), that investment hardly played any part. Such trading activities require business acumen, foresight, reputation, insight into market conditions, personal contacts, hard labour, location, etc., etc. It is the sum total and cumulative effect of various factors not essentially co-relatable to initial investment only. It is treated as valuable intangible asset and can draw from personal reputation, local reputation and objective reputation of the products of the business......” 2. Vijas Chand v. Competent Authority dated 14.08.1989 wherein it has been held that - “.... A copy of the income-tax assessment order for the year 1976-77 dated March 30, 1979, is available at pages 102 to 104 of the paper book. From this order, it is apparent that the Income-tax Officer has included the old property income but not any income from the newly constructed property. Paragraph 3 of the assessment order shows that the Income-tax officer had applied his mind to the investment made in the new house. He has included Rs.17,885 as income from smuggling activities under the head “Other sources'. Paragraph 3 of the assessment order shows that the Income-tax officer had applied his mind to the investment made in the new house. He has included Rs.17,885 as income from smuggling activities under the head “Other sources'. The Competent Authority has observed in his order that although the investments in the new construction are recorded in the books of account of the business, the business itself was an reasoning. The Competent Authority has observed (page 24 of the paper book) that Rs.5,200 were held to be income from some undisclosed source in the assessment year 1971-72 and Rs.5,350 in the assessment year 1976-77. This much of illegal income cannot convert the entire business income into an illegal source out of the profits of which the owner can withdraw for the purposes of other investments. The existence of the business, at least since the assessment year 1964-65 when the books of account have been commenced, has not been challenged. The business consisted of selling imported watches but the major portion of the income was from repairs which was essentially an activity not depending on the introduction of capital. Therefore, the accumulated income from the business which was withdrawn and invested in house property cannot be described as tainted income. We, therefore, hold that the explanation for the acquisition of the house is quite probable and cannot be disbelieved in the absence of any other evidence on record. The order of the Competent Authority in respect of this asset is also set aside.......” 3. Ramnath Prasad Banks v. Competent Authority, Calcutta, 1990 (185) IT 605 4. Caprihans India Ltd. v. Union of India, 1991 (51) ELT 249 (Bom) 5. R. Rajagopal Kandiyar v. Competent Authority, (1991) 190 ITR 676 6. M/s. Hindustan Times Ltd. v. Union of India and others, AIR 1998 SC 688 7. Bain Nath Agarwalla v. Union of India & Ors. 2002 (64) DRJ 763 (DB) 8. Commissioner of C.EX. Hyderabad v. Novapan Industries Ltd. 2007 (209) ELT 161 (SC) 9. E.I. Dupont India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, 2014 (305) ELT 282 (Guj) 10. South Central Railway Employees Cooperative Credit Society Employees Union v. B. Yashodabai and others, 2015 (2) SCC 727 11. Union of India and another v. Citi Bank, N.A. 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1073 5. Hyderabad v. Novapan Industries Ltd. 2007 (209) ELT 161 (SC) 9. E.I. Dupont India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, 2014 (305) ELT 282 (Guj) 10. South Central Railway Employees Cooperative Credit Society Employees Union v. B. Yashodabai and others, 2015 (2) SCC 727 11. Union of India and another v. Citi Bank, N.A. 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1073 5. Mr.ARL.Sunderasan, the learned Additional Solicitor General of India would submit that with regard to house property at Door No.19, Nadu-Swankara Street was acquired on 07.10.1958 for Rs.7,500/- the person affected has not produced any evidence to prove the legal source out of which the property was purchased and the property is also not been disclosed to the Income Tax Authorities. The petitioner did not produce valid evidence before the authorities concerned that she had carried on business of rolling Beedis. Similarly no evidence was letting to show that the first petitioner's husband had carried on business from 1942. The burden of proof lies on person affected who has been issued notice. He would submit that the petitioner did not establish the fact that more than 50% of income was in legal source and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to invoke Section 9 of the Act. There is no violation of natural justice and sufficient opportunities were given to the petitioner under legal heirs to establish their case before the authorities concerned. The burden of proof lies on the petitioner under Section 8 of the Act, was not discharged. 6. We have considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused the available records. 7. It is seen from records vide order dated 29.03.1995 under Section 7(1) of SAFEMA, the competent authority forfeited five properties, by issuing 6(1) notice for the forfeiture of property, three properties which are held in the name of late Sri.R.Yusuf Khan. A detenue under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 and two properties were held in the name of Smt.Pyari Ben the petitioner herein, wife of the detenue. The properties are A. Held in the name of Yusuf Khan: (i) House property at Door No.19, Nadu-Swankara Street, Trichy. (ii) House property at Door NO.24-A, Nadu-Allimal Street, Trichy. (iii) Right, title and interest in the firm, M/s.Basha Jewellery, No.178, Big Bazar Street, Trichy including the capital and current accounts as on 31.03.1976. The properties are A. Held in the name of Yusuf Khan: (i) House property at Door No.19, Nadu-Swankara Street, Trichy. (ii) House property at Door NO.24-A, Nadu-Allimal Street, Trichy. (iii) Right, title and interest in the firm, M/s.Basha Jewellery, No.178, Big Bazar Street, Trichy including the capital and current accounts as on 31.03.1976. B. Held in the name of Pyari Ben: (iv) House property at Door No.8, Swankara Street, Trichy. (v) Land in Survey No.32/2 and 189/1, Thiruverumbur. 8. It is also seen that two appeals were filed before the appellate tribunal for forfeited property on 29.09.1995, late Sri.R.Yusuf Khan had filed an appeal number in FBA.49/MDS/95. The writ petitioner had filed an appeal in FBA.48/MDS/95 pending appeals, the petitioner's husband i.e., Sri.R.Yusuf Khan died on 17.06.1998. By an order dated 05.05.1999 the tribunal allowed the legal heirs of late R.Yusuf Khan were impleaded as parties. 9. It is stated 6(1) notice, that the writ petitioner herein, i.e., Smt.Pyari Ben has no independent source of income. It is also mentioned that the details of Income Tax Assessment Returns and other opportunities were provided, wherein it has been mention that there are illegally acquired properties in terms of Section 3(1)(c)(iii)(iv) of SAFEMA. A copy of notice under section 6(2) was issued to Smt.Pyari Ben / first petitioner herein with regard to items 3 and 4. It is seen from the order passed under Section 7(1) of the SAFEMA, wherein it is mentioned that in support of the contentions made in defence, a copy of order under Section 254 of the Income Tax Act passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai dated 26.05.1981, furnished. It was also contended that for the properties at Serial No.3 and 5 under notice, as seen from the order of Income Tax Commissioner, 50% of the sources and the investment made therein have been accepted by the Commissioner of Income Tax. Therefore, the person affected may be given an option to pay a fine in lieu of forfeiture in terms of Section 9 of the Act. The Competent Authority held that the properties in this case had been purchased both in the name of person affected as well as in the name of his wife. It is also held that the first property bearing Door No.19, Nadu-Swankara Street, Trichy, acquired on 07.10.1958, for Rs.7,500/-. The Competent Authority held that the properties in this case had been purchased both in the name of person affected as well as in the name of his wife. It is also held that the first property bearing Door No.19, Nadu-Swankara Street, Trichy, acquired on 07.10.1958, for Rs.7,500/-. The person has not produced evidence regarding the source out of which the property was purchased. 10. It was also contended that out of savings made from the artificial diamonds business carried on him from the year 1942 onwards, the person affected saved Rs.7,500/-, which was utilized for the purchase of the property. This contention was not accepted by the Competent Authority, as it was held that there was absolutely no evidence on record to indicate that person affected was in fact carrying on artificial diamond business, and that property was purchased out of savings made therefrom. The Competent Authority came to the conclusion that he had not discharged his liability under Section 8 of the Act. The house property at 24A, Allimmal Street, Trichy had been purchased for Rs.7,675/-, including stamp charges. The person affected had declared an income of Rs.11,850/- for the said assessment year to the Income Tax Authorities, and the said property was purchased out of such income. However, the Competent Authority found that he has not furnished any document to substantiate the purchase of the property and also the source of income of Rs.11,850/- stated to have been declared to the Income Tax Authorities. The Competent Authority held that the order of the Income Tax Department indicated that the person affected had declared an income of Rs.11,850/- for the assessment year 1968-69. Apart from the purchase of the house property under consideration for Rs.7,675/-, the person affected had also spent on account of Rs.15,864/- on account of renovating and making improvements in the house property at No.8, Swankara Street, Trichy. Thus, against the income shown at Rs.11,850/-, the person affected had made an expenditure of Rs.23,539/- in the assessment year 1968-69. 11. The person affected had claimed to have availed of a loan to an extent of Rs.4,250/- for meeting such excess expenditure. Allowing for of this loan and treating an amount of Rs.6,000/- as out of past savings from his wife, the Income Tax Officer computed the assessment of income at Rs.14,389/- for the said assessment year. 11. The person affected had claimed to have availed of a loan to an extent of Rs.4,250/- for meeting such excess expenditure. Allowing for of this loan and treating an amount of Rs.6,000/- as out of past savings from his wife, the Income Tax Officer computed the assessment of income at Rs.14,389/- for the said assessment year. The Competent Authority noted that the affected person had already become a partner in the firm M/s.Basha Jewellery in 1964-65. It was obtained that there was no reason why the income declared before the Income Tax Authorities from the business should not have been supported by the books of accounts maintained by the firm, particularly since it was a partnership firm. No evidence had been produced to support the loan of Rs.4,250/- claimed to have been taken by the person affected. The Competent Authority also observed that the person affected had claimed that the property was mortgaged to one Smt.Sivakumari Ammal for a loan of Rs.7,000/-. Accordingly, he claimed a deduction, which had been rejected by the Commissioner of Income Tax for the reasons submitted in that order. The Commissioner of Income Tax had rejected the claim of the client for an amount of Rs.7,000/- a mortgage loan from the assessed income for the year 1968-69. 12. It was also contended before the Competent Authority that since 50% of the sources have been explained and accepted by the Commissioner of Income Tax, the person affected may be given an option to pay a fine in lieu of forfeiture. The Competent Authority did not accept the same on the ground that the income shown from the assessment year 1968-69 remains unexplained. 13. The Competent Authority held that the house at No.8, Swankara Street, Trichy acquired on 12.02.1965, in the name of his wife, the writ petitioner herein, at a cost of Rs.5,000/-. The explanation tendered was that Rs.3,000/- was invested out of his wife's savings from Beedi manufacturing labour work, and the remaining sum of Rs.2,000/- was contributed by him out of his own savings. The person affected could not explain the source of savings of Rs.2,000/- and the Competent Authority also rejected the contention that the wife would have accumulated a savings of Rs.3,000/- in cash out of Beedi manufacturing for labour work for about 25 years. The person affected could not explain the source of savings of Rs.2,000/- and the Competent Authority also rejected the contention that the wife would have accumulated a savings of Rs.3,000/- in cash out of Beedi manufacturing for labour work for about 25 years. The Competent Authority also held that in the income tax return filed for the assessment year 1968-69, an amount of Rs.9,389/- was claimed as invested in the renovation of the house as out of past savings. It was held that the source of investment remained unexplained, and the property was held to be illegally acquired. The Competent Authority found that with regard to the property under consideration, the person affected had a 44% share in the firm M/s.Basha Jewellery, Trichy, but he did not explain how the investments were made in this property. The person affected had been silent through out the proceedings, including the affidavit which he filed before this Court in W.P.No.3098 of 1978. The Competent Authority found that the person affected never produced any books of accounts and records for the assessment years 1975-76 and 1976-77. The Income Tax Officer had added a sum of Rs.3,000/- for each of the years, as income out of business. 14. In the absence of any explanation regarding the investment made in the firm, and thereafter, the income generated thereof not being supported by any books of accounts and records, the Competent Authority held that the said firm is liable for forfeiture under the Act. The agricultural land in Thiruverumbur, acquired in May 1975 for Rs.5,400/- was purchased in the name of his wife from her savings as well as from his own savings. However, he did not explain what these savings were and how they were made. The Income Tax Officer considered the acquisition of the property as one with no explainable sources and added a sum of Rs.3,000/- each for the years 1975-76 and 1976-77 to his income. The Competent Authority held that the sources of the said property had been declared illegally acquired and the properties were liable for forfeiture under the Act. It was also held that the entire source for the said property had been declared as unexplained, and the Income Tax Officer had added Rs.3,000/- for each of the years 1975-76 and 1976-77 to the income of person affected while considering the assessment of the sources of this property. It was also held that the entire source for the said property had been declared as unexplained, and the Income Tax Officer had added Rs.3,000/- for each of the years 1975-76 and 1976-77 to the income of person affected while considering the assessment of the sources of this property. Therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to remedy under Section 9 of the Act. 15. The learned Additional Solicitor General of India has referred several paragraphs about the detailed discussions recorded by the Appellate Tribunal, with regard to each properties. 16. The burden of proving that any property specified in the notice served under Section 6, is not illegally acquired property shall be on the person affected under Section 8 of the Act. The Appellate Tribunal held in paragraph 5 which states hereunder :- “5. The house property at Door No.19, Nadu-Swankara Street, Trichy, was purchased on 07.10.1958 for Rs.7500/-. The sources are stated to be savings made by late R.Yusuf Khan from the artificial diamond business carried on by him from 1942 onwards. However, no evidence has been adduced in support of the claims that the late R.Yusuf Khan was carrying on the artificial diamond business and was able to save Rs.7500/-. He had not kept his yearly savings in any bank account. We agree with the Competent Authority that in those days, the amount of Rs.7500/- was quite a substantial amount for some one to keep in cash. In the absence of any proof of legitimate business and savings, we agree with the competent authority that R.Yusuf Khan failed to discharge his liability u/s.8 of SAFEMA. 17. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the Commissioner's order is under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act. The impact of the Section not noted under the Scheme 1961 Act, under Section 253, against the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner can file an appeal under Section 263, Commissioner can revise the order of the Income Tax Officer, even enhance it. 18. It is pertinent to mention that the Appellate Tribunal has considered the Commissioner's Order and passed detailed order paragraphs 6 to 11 which states hereunder :- “6. 18. It is pertinent to mention that the Appellate Tribunal has considered the Commissioner's Order and passed detailed order paragraphs 6 to 11 which states hereunder :- “6. Before considering the legality or otherwise of the sources of the investment in the house property at Door NO.24-A, it is necessary to consider the source of investment in M/s.Basha Jewellery because it is apparently income from this firm which has been used to acquire the house property at No.24 A as well as some other properties. Late R.Yusuf Khan had claimed to have become a partner, with 44% share, in the Basha Jewellery in 1964-65. In his order the Competent Authority has stated that (a) no explanation of the investment in the firm was furnished (b) Late R.Yusuf Khan had been silent about this property all through the proceedings under the SAFEMA (except when he appeared for personal hearing) as well as in the Writ Petition No.3098/78 filed before the Madras High Court and (c) even during personal hearing he (late R.Yusuf Khan) did not furnish details of business till the assessment year 1968-69 but filed only one page extract of the Profit and Loss Account for the financial year 1975-76. Late R.Yusuf Khan never produced any books of account of the firm before the competent Authority. 7. It is very significant that neither before the Competent Authority nor before us the appellants challenged the findings of the CIT. On the other hand, in the grounds of appeal filed in May 1995, late R.Yusuf Khan had claimed that “the source of income have been properly reported to the Income Tax Authority and the same has been accepted by the Income Tax Department”. Nothing can be farther from truth. In his order the CIT has also observed that late R.Yusuf Khan had not made with drawals from his business income or out of his past savings for domestic and personal expenses. Obviously, late R.Yusuf Khan had much more income than what he was declaring before the ITO but he had difficulty in explaining the investments in the properties. When he failed to convince the ITO that he had savings to the extent of Rs.10000/- he went to the CIT to claim that he had also mobilised Rs.7000/- by mortgaging a house property but could not convince the CIT. When he failed to convince the ITO that he had savings to the extent of Rs.10000/- he went to the CIT to claim that he had also mobilised Rs.7000/- by mortgaging a house property but could not convince the CIT. We agree with the Competent Authority that the source of investment remain totally unexplained and house property No.24 A is illegally acquired. 8. The house property at No.8, Swankara Street, Trichy, was purchased for Rs.5000/- on 12.02.1965 in the name of Smt.Pyarben, Detenure's wife. The source are stated to be Rs.3000/- saved by her out of beedi manufacturing labour work over a period of 25 years and Rs.2000/- contributed by the husband out of his own savings. These explanations were rightly rejected by the Competent Authority. There was no likelihood of savings by Yusuf Khan from M/s.Bashs Jewellery which was started in the year in which the property was purchased. The Competent Authority rightly disbelieved the story of saving of Rs.3000/- by Smt.Pyariben. Even if, we give her benefit of doubt, for which there is no basis, that she might have saved Rs.3000/- it is also to be kept in view that late R.Yusuf Khan spent further a sum of Rs.15864/- on the renovation and improvement of this house and the source of this amount, which is several times more than the purchase price, remains unexplained. Therefore, the Competent Authority is justified in forfeiting this house property. 9. The fifth and the last property ordered to be forfeited is the agriculture land in S.No.32/2 and 189/1, Thiruverumber, purchased in May 1975 for Rs.5400/- in the name of Smt.Pyariben. The findings of the Competent Authority was that it was purchased out of detenue's income of Rs.6630/- during the financial year 1974-75 and savings of his wife. In his order the Competent Authority has pointed out that the ITO concerned had considered the acquisition of the property as one with no explainable source of investment in the agriculture lands must have come out of the smuggling activities and justified additions made by the ITO to the declared income. The orders of the ITO and the observation of this CIT go against the claim in the grounds of appeal that the Income Tax Department had accepted the source of income reported by late R.Yusuf Khan. Therefore, the forfeiture of this property also is justified. 10. The orders of the ITO and the observation of this CIT go against the claim in the grounds of appeal that the Income Tax Department had accepted the source of income reported by late R.Yusuf Khan. Therefore, the forfeiture of this property also is justified. 10. The Competent Authority rightly rejected the claim as factually incorrect. Apart from the factual incorrectness of the claim, it has also to be noted that late R.Yusuf Khan's main claim was that he had made investment out of income from M/s.Bashs Jewellery but the Competent Authority has proved, and we agree with the Competent Authority, that the source of investment in the Bashs Jewellery itself remain unexplained and that is why we are upholding the forfeiture of late R.Yusuf Khan's right, title and interest in that firm. If the firm was acquired with tainted money, the entire income from that firm is also tainted and all the properties Tax Department is concerned only with the collection of tax on income, irrespective of the legal or illegal nature of income. On the other hand, under the SAFEMA illegally acquired properties are liable to be forfeited. 11. All the properties had been acquired by late R.Yusuf Khan either in his own name or in the name of his wife and he had seventeen long years to explain the source to the Competent Authority but failed.” 19. The facts relating to the case were elaborately adjudicated by the Tribunal along with the assessment order passed by the Competent Authority. The Tribunal concluded by stating that the nexus between the forfeited property and the person affected was clearly established, and consequently, confirmed the order of the Competent Authority. 20. We are of the considered opinion that the proceedings as contemplated under Sections 6(1) and 7(1) of the SAFEMA were complied with by the authorities, and, under Section 8 of the SAFEMA, the burden of proof lies on the person affected. In the present cases, neither the affected person nor the legal heirs, including the petitioners, failed to discharge the burden, which resulted in forfeiting the properties under the provisions of SAFEMA. The petitioners have also failed to prove that more than 50% of the sources of income are from illegal sources, and therefore, they are not entitled to seek any relief under Section 9 of the SAFEMA. 21. The petitioners have also failed to prove that more than 50% of the sources of income are from illegal sources, and therefore, they are not entitled to seek any relief under Section 9 of the SAFEMA. 21. The Competent Authority and Appellate Tribunal shall have all the powers of a Civil Court, while trying a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 under Section 15 of the Act. Therefore, the Competent Authority and Appellate Tribunal are fact finding Forums. 22. The rulings relied on by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners is not supported to their case and there is no force in the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel and we find there is no merits in the writ petitions. 23. The power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to ensure that the processes, through which a decision has been taken by the Competent Authority and Appellate Tribunal are in consonance with the statute under rules in force, without any perversity, but not on the decision itself. We have considered the factual findings of the Competent Authority and Appellate Authority, as well as the grounds raised between the parties. We do not find any infirmity in respect to the orders impugned. 24. In the result, both the writ petitions are dismissed. The impugned order dated 29.11.1999, passed by the Appellate Tribunal in FBA Nos.48 & 49/MDS/95 are confirmed. Consequently, the connected writ miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.