9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (3) TMI 65X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ural and non-agricultural lands, and movable property, i.e., shares, loans and advances to third parties and some property in Uganda. For the wealth in Uganda the assessee claimed that as the said wealth has been seized by and had vested in the Military Government of Uganda, they are no longer owned by the assessee. The ITO did not agree with the claim of the assessee. He included the wealth of the assessee which he had in Uganda. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter before the AAC. According to the AAC, the foreign assets of the assessee do not constitute his assets during the year under consideration in view of the facts of this case. Being aggrieved, the revenue came in appeal before us. 2. The submission of the learned dep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had in Uganda is as under : Rs. 866 shares in Uganda Stores Ltd. at the rate of Rs. 354 3,06,564 Credit balance in Uganda Stores Ltd. 1,06,298 Parshottamdas Sons. 50,000 J.P. Amin 90,000 -------------------- 5,52,862 -------------------- After the expulsion of all Asians President Idi Amin of the Military Government of Uganda passed a decree declaring all Asian property in Uganda as abandoned property from the date of expulsion and vested the said property in the Government of Uganda without any consideration. From page 1 of the assessee's paper book, i.e., letter dated 12-4-1973 of the Ugandan Government, it appears that the property at 23, Kampala Road, was vested in the Government of Uganda. Subsequently, there was a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... High Court. In this case some gold was seized by the Central Excise officials. Gold was only seized and returned later and not confiscated on relevant dates. Their Lordships held that mere possibility of confiscation does not impair ownership of the assessee in the articles. Market value of gold on relevant valuation dates is to be included in the net wealth. The facts of both the cases cited by the learned departmental representative are not identical to the facts of the case under consideration. In the first case the right was under the statute and that is enforceable in the court of law. The point was only that the quantum of claim shall be decided according to the statute. In the second case there was no confiscation. Property was only ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
