TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1995 (4) TMI 53
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the circumstances of the case, the assessee was entitled to a deduction of Rs. 84,000 being the cash amount confiscated by the customs authorities as business loss ? " During the previous year, relevant to the assessment year 1965-66, the Central excise and customs authorities raided the room in a hotel occupied by the assessee on January 26, 1965, and recovered a sum of Rs. 84,000. According to the first explanation furnished by the assessee before the customs authorities, the amount formed part of Rs. 1,60,185 realised on the sale of smuggled gold. Before the customs authorities, the assessee stated that he was a partner in a firm Chhaganbhai Desaibhai of Ahmedabad and had visited Delhi a month prior to that date and had fixed up with o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y rejecting the explanation of the assessee, which in appeal were confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal, after considering the rival submissions, held that raid in the assessee's premises had fetched a sum of Rs. 84,000 which is neither disputed nor disputable because the said amount stood confiscated. The Tribunal, after taking into consideration the alleged statements and stand taken before the customs authorities and the assessing authority came to the conclusion that the addition of Rs. 1,60,185 on the ground of established smuggling business being carried on is not supported. However, it also came to the conclusion that the real facts before the Income-tax Officer were that the assessee had a sum of Rs. 84,000 and two ....