9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (5) TMI 89X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ('the 1961 Act') by the ITO holding that the seized cash represented only part of the undisclosed income of the assessee which was estimated at Rs. 4,21,000 and he determined the tax payable thereon at Rs. 3,00,003. He, therefore, retained the cash of Rs. 3 lakhs towards payment of that tax. On 8-10-1975 the Voluntary Disclosure of Income and Wealth Ordinance, 1975 was promulgated which enabled the assessee to make a disclosure of the seized cash of Rs. 3 lakhs and get the benefit of a reduced rate of tax available under the scheme. Notice under section 148 of the 1961 Act was issued on 5-3-1976 and after the assessee filed returns of income for the earlier assessment years in accordance with the voluntary disclosure made by him showing Rs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the valuation date 31-3-1976. In the alternative, it was argued that since the amount was kept in deposit with a bank by the Commissioner, the assessee was entitled to exemption under section 5(1)(xxvi). On the other hand, it was contended on behalf of the revenue that the order under section 132(5) was only provisional and since it did not confiscate the amount, the assessee continued to be the owner of the asset and it was liable to be treated as part of his net wealth. It was submitted that the Commissioner was not the agent of the assessee and his retaining the amount in the bank was irrelevant for the consideration of any exemption under section 5(1)(xxvi). In the alternative, it was submitted that if it was held that the deposit i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods seized and liable to be returned to the owner who has a right to demand the same unless or until it is confiscated. Similarly it has been held by the Kerala High Court in the case of Assainar v. ITO [1975] 101 ITR 854 that when articles are seized under statutory provisions, the officer who seized the articles will be in the position of bailee so long as the enquiry is pending and when the enquiry is over he is bound to return the article and would thereafter be holding the article on behalf of the person from whom it was seized. There is also a decision of the Gujarat High Court in Jayantilal Amritlal v. CWT [1982] 135 ITR 742 which affirms that there is no curtailment of the ownership of an assessee in the article seized unless ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... set in question should be held by the assessee for at least six months ending with the valuation date. The Notes on Clauses has explained that this amendment was made so that exemption in respect of specified assets will be available even in cases where such assets are owned, though not held, by the assessee for a specified period. This amendment applies to the present assessment year 1976-77 with which we are concerned and Parliament having clarified that it should be sufficient if the asset is owned by the assessee and not that it is held by the assessee, the fact that the cash in question was deposited in the bank during the period when the assessee owned it would be sufficient and such period of ownership being admittedly beyond the req ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
