1984 (7) TMI 217

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....th-tax had been made for the subsequent asst. yr. 1967-68 to 1973-74 on the same quantity of primary gold. On 17th Aug.,1974 there was a search of the premises of the assessee by the Central Excise Department when the primary gold was confiscated. Consequently, in the return for the asst. yr. 1975-76 for the wealth tax the assessee claimed that while the value of jewellery may be taken at Rs. 1,67,910 there should be a deduction of an equal amount because that primary gold had been confiscated. In the assessment the claim for deduction was not allowed originally. But by a rectification order dt. 3rd Decision., 1977 the entire amount was allowed to be deducted as the value of gold confiscated by the Central Excise. For the same asst. yr. 197....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ee had with him primary gold other than that seized by the Central Excise Authorities. The attempt of the Revenue to show that the gold seized seems to be different from the gold shown in the wealth-tax return of the earlier years is based on the difference in weighment, the alleged erasure of the marking on the gold bars showing it to be of foreign origin, the rejection of the claim of the assessee that he had received the gold bars from his father in 1959 and the allegation that the assessee had filed a return without any taxable income when he was required to do so. But, the Revenue is unable to establish the existence of any primary gold other than the gold confiscated by the Excise Department, for it is admitted that the assessee was n....