1991 (3) TMI 96

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....-73 for which the accounting period ended on March 31, 1972. The assesses is an individual. On August 18, 1971, the Central Excise authorities intercepted his car near Kasargod in which the assessee was travelling alone. On search, the authorities found a carton of English crockery articles and a bag containing negotiable instruments such as bank drafts, travellers cheques and foreign currency notes which amounted, in terms of Indian currency in value, to more than a lakh of rupees. The assessee admitted that he was the owner of the car and that, on August 16, 1971, when he was in Bombay, a person by name Mohammed gave him packet, which contained the goods seized then, with an instruction to hand over the same to someone else at Kasargod. T....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n alternate contention that even if the amount is liable to be assessed as income from "other sources", since he had lost the amount, he will be entitled to deduct the loss. It was his plea that the Foreign Exchange Enforcement authorities seized the amount and took proceedings and so the amount was lost to him. It is in this perspective that the amount was claimed as a loss. This plea was rejected by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. It is thereafter, at the instance of the assessee, and in the proceedings initiated by him in O. P. No. 1049 of 1979, and as directed by this court that the question of law formulated hereinabove has been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal for the decision of this court. We heard counsel for the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ade or that the goods were permanently and irretrievably lost to the assessee much less in the accounting period. Be that as it may, so far as the proceedings under the Income-tax Act is concerned, it is conceded that the goods were seized from the assessee. The assessee had possession of the goods at the time of seizure. As the possessor/owner of the goods, he could not give satisfactory explanation about the source which had gone into acquisition of the said goods. The Income-tax Officer treated the money spent in acquiring the said goods as income of the assessee. It was affirmed by the Appellate Tribunal also. The said finding has become final. Once the assessee is found to be the owner of the seized goods under the Income-tax Act, it i....