9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (9) TMI 17X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee is an individual. The valuation date for the assessment year 1976-77 was April 13, 1976. He objected to the addition of the value of gold and gold coins amounting to Rs. 6,96,544 which were seized from his custody by the income-tax authorities on January 17, 1975, and, later on, the Customs Authorities took over the custody of the said gold and gold coins from the incometax authorities on January 18, 1975. The Collector of Customs initiated action against the assessee in respect of the said seized gold and gold coins and ultimately confiscated the same, vide his order dated June 29, 1978. The Wealth-tax Officer included the value of the seized ornaments in his net wealth as on April 13, 1976. The assessee opposed the above action of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rit in the assessee's stand that the order of confiscation, as finally passed by the Collector of Customs, relates back to the date of seizure of the goods, for section 126 specifically makes distinction between the period up to which the goods were in the custody of the Customs Officer who had seized them and the period commencing from the date on which the confiscation order is passed. On the date when the confiscation order is passed, the Officer who had adjudged confiscation is required to take over possession of the confiscated goods from the Customs Officer concerned and hold possession thereof thereafter. The goods also vested in the Central Government only upon the order of confiscation being passed. The use of the word 'thereupon' ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... perty belonging to the assessee which is liable to confiscation has to be arrived at. Our attention has been drawn to a decision of this court in the case of CWT v. smt. Sumitra Devi Jalan [1974] 96 ITR 35. In that case, the Division Bench observed as follows (at page 43 ) : " The right, however, was in jeopardy on the relevant valuation date because according to the assessee she had lost the shares because of stealing or otherwise. Therefore, all that she had at the relevant moment was the right to recover her equitable ownership in respect of these shares. The Tribunal or the Revenue authority, however, had not considered whether that right of equitable ownership was capable of having any market value in terms of section 7(1) of the W ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it would not be included in computing the net wealth of an asset, provided the same had not been insured and that necessary instructions in this respect would be issued to the authorities concerned'." In our view, a person whose valuable property had been seized could not exercise the right of ownership so far as possession, enjoyment and sale of such property is concerned. There cannot be any market value for such property inasmuch as section 7(1) provides that the market value shall be estimated to be the price which in the opinion of the Wealthtax Officer it would fetch if sold in the open market on the valuation date. In view of the aforesaid restriction on the ownership and the goods being liable to confiscation, mere legal ownership ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
