TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (8) TMI 775
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted as unexplained investment in Gold even though no primary gold was found? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in coming to a conclusion that the applicant has made investment in Gold at any point of time, especially when there were no material or proof to show that such investment was made? 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the provisions of Section 132(4A), whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that there was no nexus or proximity between the alleged acquisition of primary gold and the investment in Gold Bond Scheme? 4. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in the assuming ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tually belonged to the assessee. Subsequently, the said Kapoorchand retracted the statement given earlier. The Assessing Officer pointed out that the said Kapoorchand was not having any asset worth mentioning and he was running his livelihood from the salary earned every month. The Assessing Officer further pointed out that the assessee had deposed that the balance available in the account of Shri.Kapoorchand and Smt.Krian actually belonged to the assessee and he was prepared to offer the same for assessment. It is further found that money had been deposited by cash in the name of Shri.Kapoorchand and Smt.Kiran, a day earlier to the date of cheque issued. Thus the Assessing Officer pointed out to the statement given by the assessee that at ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....jected. The Assessing Officer pointed out that there was no nexus between the gold acquired through the receipt of customs duty for import of gold found at the time of search and acquisition of Gold Bonds under the Gold Bond Scheme, 1993. Thus the assessment included a sum of Rs.43,06,458/- as per Section 69 of the Income Tax Act. Aggrieved by this, the assessee went on appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. 6. As regards the acquisition of gold, which was invested in Gold Bond Scheme, the Tribunal rejected the contention of the assessee that based on the Budget Speech of the Finance Minister in Parliament on 29.2.1992, the assessee imported gold from abroad utilising the services of Shri.Mohammed Mustafa and Shri.Abu Ta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e money available with the assessee for importing gold through the above-mentioned persons. In the absence of any satisfactory explanation linking the import of gold in the investment under Gold Bond Scheme, which came long after the import of gold, the Tribunal rejected the assessee's contention that based on the speech of the Finance Minister made in the Parliament dated 29.2.1992 relating to the year 1992-93, he imported gold. 7. Considering the fact that the Gold Bond Scheme pursuant to the Gold Bond Immunity Act was brought on the statute book pursuant to the introduction of the bill in the Loksabha on 23.2.1993, the Tribunal held that the assessee was not entitled to any immunity as spoken thereto in the said enactment. The ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the source of gold holding and the Reserve Bank of India was preparing a detailed proposal along those lines. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the assessee relied on the Budget speech of the Finance Minister as well as the Scheme, which, under Section 4 of the Gold Bonds (Immunities and Exemptions) Act, 1993, granted immunity that no subscriber shall be required to disclose the nature and source of acquisition of the gold subscribed for the Gold Bonds including the source of money with which the gold was acquired and submitted that the Revenue was not justified in making the assessment. Further, he pointed out that no primary gold was seized from the assessee, thus, there being no seized material, the charge for assessment under....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... spoken to under Section 4 of the Gold Bonds (Immunities and Exemptions) Act, 1993. 11. It is no doubt true that all that was seized was only Gold Jewellery from the premises of the assessee. Yet, as rightly pointed out by the Tribunal, there is hardly any explanation from the assessee as regards the import of gold using the services of two persons about whom the assessee was not in a position to say anything. There is equally no explanation as regards the keeping of the gold for the period of nine months. Except for the Finance Minister's speech, which we do not think, would afford an acceptable ground for treating the import as one for the purpose of investment in Gold Bond, the contention of the assessee based on a possible ena....