Valuation date ownership controls wealth-tax inclusion; confiscation ends ownership, and later redemption does not revive it retrospectively.

For wealth-tax purposes, inclusion in net wealth depends on ownership on the valuation date, not mere possession. Gold and jewellery seized before the first valuation date remained includible because no confiscation order had yet been made, so ownership continued with the assessee. For the second valuation date, a confiscation order had already divested ownership, and a later redemption option did not relate back to restore ownership on that date. The seized assets were therefore includible for the earlier year and excluded for the later year.

---

---

Issues: Inclusion in net wealth of gold and gold jewellery seized by the Customs authorities, having regard to the dates of seizure, confiscation and subsequent redemption.

Analysis: The gold and jewellery were seized before the relevant valuation dates. For the first valuation date, no confiscation order had yet been passed, so the assessee continued to be the owner notwithstanding loss of possession and the assets were includible in net wealth. For the second valuation date, a confiscation order had already been made, and confiscation divested the assessee of ownership; the later option of redemption granted by the appellate tribunal did not operate retrospectively to restore ownership on that date.

Conclusion: The inclusion of the seized gold and jewellery was upheld for the earlier assessment year and deleted for the later assessment year, with the result that the assessee succeeded only in part.

Ratio Decidendi: For wealth-tax purposes, ownership on the valuation date controls inclusion in net wealth, and a confiscation order divests ownership from that date, while a subsequent redemption right does not relate back to revive ownership for an earlier valuation date.

---