1984 (2) TMI 356

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... question are referred to us by the Tribunal for determination : (1) Whether there was evidence before the Tribunal to give a finding that the assessee was not the owner of the contraband but only a carrier ? (2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of ₹ 65,000 being the value of the gold seized by the customs au .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ,000 being the then market value of the contraband goods to the income of the assessee. The appeal to the AAC filed by the assessee was dismissed. Thereafter the matter was taken up before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has come to a conclusion that the assessee was not the owner of the gold but was only a carrier. The Tribunal has found that the financial condition of the assessee was poor and tha .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n the basis of these facts came to the conclusion that the assessee was a small person with insufficient means and that he was not the owner of the gold in question. The Tribunal has, therefore, come to the conclusion that the addition of ₹ 65,000 made by the ITO under s. 69A of the IT Act, 1961 was not justified. 3. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the finding of the Tribun .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X