9911796707
TMI Blog1980 (9) TMI 34X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T [1975] 98 ITR 458 (P H) ], which pertain to the assessment year 1964-65. Questions Nos. 1 and 2 stand answered by an order of the Bench, dated 20th November, 1973. As regards question No. 3 which is in the following terms, supplementary statement of the case was sent for : " (3) Whether the valuation of gold could be taken at any value other than the rates fixed by, the Gold Control Order ?" In W.T. Refs. Nos., 2 and 7 of 1971, which pertain to the assessment year 1965-66, question No. 1 was answered by this court on 20th November, 1973, but regarding question No. 2, which is in the following terms, a supplementary statement of the case was sent for: "Whether the valuation of gold could be taken at any value other than the rates f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dia Rules, 1962, were amended and, Part XII-A which is headed the, Gold Control, was added on 9th January, 1963. The said Part contained rr. 126A to 126Z. Rule 126H contained provisions putting restrictions on the possession and sale of gold. It has been contended by Shri Puri, the learned counsel for the assessee, that in view of the provisions of the Rules contained in rr. 126A to 126Z, the assessee was not in a position to dispose of the gold bullion in open market, and, therefore, the WTO erred in assessing the value of the gold bullion at the market rate. It has been contended that in view of the restrictions contained in the above-mentioned Rules, the assessee was not at liberty to dispose of the gold bullion if he so liked and, there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The only other contention raised by the learned counsel for the assessee is that the assessee's application made before the Tribunal when the case went back to it for sending the supplementary statement of the case, for summoning an official of the Finance Ministry for getting the information regarding the prevalent value of 24 ct. gold during the relevant time, has been wrongly rejected by the Tribunal. We are unable to agree with this Contention as well. We do not find any relevance for summoning the said record. The Tribunal in pursuance of the directions of this court vide order dated 20th November, 1973, was asked to ascertain the material facts indicating whether the Board while permitting the purchase or sale of gold, placed any r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
