Gold bonds immunity fails where no enacted scheme existed and the source of imported gold was not proved.

A mere Budget Speech or proposed gold immunity scheme could not confer exemption where no definite enactment existed at the time of import. The assessee also failed to prove a credible nexus between the imported gold and the later Gold Bonds investment, and did not satisfactorily explain the source or prolonged retention of the gold. On those facts, the Tribunal's view that the amount represented an unexplained investment in gold was upheld, and the claimed immunity under the Gold Bonds framework was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal was right in upholding the addition as unexplained investment in gold and in rejecting the assessee's claim of immunity under the Gold Bonds scheme.

Analysis: The assessee sought to link the import of gold in June 1992 with the later investment under the Gold Bonds scheme and relied on the Finance Minister's Budget Speech and Section 4 of the Gold Bonds (Immunities and Exemptions) Act, 1993. The Court held that a mere budget speech or a proposed scheme could not confer immunity in the absence of a definite enactment at the time of import. The assessee failed to produce satisfactory evidence showing a nexus between the imported gold and the investment in Gold Bonds, and there was no convincing explanation for the source of the gold or the retention of the gold for several months before investment.

Conclusion: The Tribunal was justified in sustaining the addition as unexplained investment in gold; the answer was against the assessee.

---