1984 (7) TMI 217

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... yr. 1967-68 to 1973-74 on the same quantity of primary gold. On 17th Aug.,1974 there was a search of the premises of the assessee by the Central Excise Department when the primary gold was confiscated. Consequently, in the return for the asst. yr. 1975-76 for the wealth tax the assessee claimed that while the value of jewellery may be taken at Rs. 1,67,910 there should be a deduction of an equal amount because that primary gold had been confiscated. In the assessment the claim for deduction was not allowed originally. But by a rectification order dt. 3rd Decision., 1977 the entire amount was allowed to be deducted as the value of gold confiscated by the Central Excise. For the same asst. yr. 1975-76 the assessee had filed an IT return show .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t seized by the Central Excise Authorities. The attempt of the Revenue to show that the gold seized seems to be different from the gold shown in the wealth-tax return of the earlier years is based on the difference in weighment, the alleged erasure of the marking on the gold bars showing it to be of foreign origin, the rejection of the claim of the assessee that he had received the gold bars from his father in 1959 and the allegation that the assessee had filed a return without any taxable income when he was required to do so. But, the Revenue is unable to establish the existence of any primary gold other than the gold confiscated by the Excise Department, for it is admitted that the assessee was not in possession of any other gold at the t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... which was seized could not be identified with the gold which was disclosed in the wealth-tax returns of the earlier assessment years. In that attempt, the Revenue has necessarily to fail as long as it is not able to establish that the assessee had in his possession any gold other than the gold tha was confiscated by the Central Excise Authorities. When the very existence of the gold has not been established, there is no need to see any further about the acquisition of such gold by the assessee and the source for investment in such gold so as to make an assessment under s. 69. In the absence of the basic fact of the assessee having acquired the gold in the previous year there can be no accusation of the assessee having failed to disclose an .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X