https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6147 Possession of prohibited primary gold under the Gold (Control) Act was treated as conscious possession, so confiscation and penalty could not stand without reliable proof that the appellants knew of or controlled the concealed gold. The evidence was inconsistent, the contemporaneous record was defective, and the gold was found in a hidden cavity to which the appellants had no access; the seizure, however, remained lawful because the Gold Control Officer had reason to believe a contravention had occurred and could validly take over the gold from the Income-tax Department. Immunity under the Voluntary Disclosure Scheme was unavailable because seizure and pending proceedings had already begun. en-us Tue, 06 Jul 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 12 Apr 2017 17:03:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6147 Possession of prohibited primary gold under the Gold (Control) Act was treated as conscious possession, so confiscation and penalty could not stand without reliable proof that the appellants knew of or controlled the concealed gold. The evidence was inconsistent, the contemporaneous record was defective, and the gold was found in a hidden cavity to which the appellants had no access; the seizure, however, remained lawful because the Gold Control Officer had reason to believe a contravention had occurred and could validly take over the gold from the Income-tax Department. Immunity under the Voluntary Disclosure Scheme was unavailable because seizure and pending proceedings had already begun. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 06 Jul 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6147