TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (5) TMI 199
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d to as "the said Act") for a direction to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bombay Bench 'C', Bombay to refer the 5 questions of law arising out of its orders dated 19.07.1983 in WTA Nos.598 to 612(BOM)/1981 for the assessment years 1961-62 to 1975-76. By order dated 28.08.1984, this court admitted the above Wealth-tax Application and restricted rule to the following two questions of law : "(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal erred in law in including the market value of the said gold in the computation of net wealth of the original petitioner ? (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal erred in law in rejecting the assessee's submissions that even if the said gold were to be included in the net wealth, the value thereof to be taken ought to be NIL or ought to be arrived at, bearing in mind the liability for confiscation, fine and penalty and bearing in mind that what had to be valued was the price which the assessee claim to be restored possession of the said gold would fetch, if sold in the open market ?" 2.1. The Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'B' Bench Bombay (h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the case, the Tribunal erred in law in including the market value of the gold and gold coins in the computation of net wealth of the appellant ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in law in rejecting the assessee's submissions that even if the gold and gold coins were to be included in the net wealth the value thereof to be taken ought to be NIL, or ought to be arrived at, bearing in mind the liability for confiscation, fine and penalty and bearing in mind that what had to be valued was the price which the assessee claim to be restored possession of the gold would fetch, if sold in the open market ? (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Tribunal erred in law in rejecting the assessee's claim that matter had to be considered on the footing of the assessee having invested the said gold and gold coins in gold bonds which were exempt from wealth-tax ? (4) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Department having knowingly and consciously prevented the assessee from investing the gold and gold coins in the purchasing of the gold bonds under the Gold Bon....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ns of both the parties. The learned counsel Dr. Daniel for the Respondents waives service. (2) The above Writ Petition be heard expeditiously alongwith Wealth Tax Reference Nos.2 of 1992, WTR No.4 of 1993, WTR No.8 of 1994, WTR No.8 of 1991, WTR No.3 of 1994, WTR No.102 of 1998, WTR No.11 of 2000 and Wealth Tax Appeal Nos. 608 of 2003 and WTA No.362 of 2003. Liberty to both the parties to move for a fixed date of hearing." 3. On 30.10.2018, Supreme Court passed a common order in respect of the subject matter of the above cases in Civil Appeal No.723 of 1973 heard alongwith companion Civil Appeal Nos.10824 of 2018 to 10833 of 2018 and issued the following directions in paragraph 12 which are relevant and read thus :- "......... 12. The impugned order records that owing to counsel not turning up in time, the reference of questions made under the Wealth Tax Act at that point of time would remain unanswered. Given the fact that the show cause notice and proceedings thereafter have now disappeared as a result of the repeal of the Gold Control Act, we give liberty to both parties to add to or amend or delete the questions in the Wealth Tax Reference within a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (Gold Control) Rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as "the said rules"); on 03.02.1966 the Deputy Collector, Central Excise issued show cause notice to C.S. Goenka as to why the seized gold should not be confiscated under Rule 126(m) of the said rules. 5.3. By order dated 04.03.1966 the Income Tax Officer included the value of the seized gold in the estimate of income filed by the assessee C.S. Goenka under Section 132(5) of the Income Tax Act. 5.4. In March 1966 C.S. Goenka filed two separate writ petitions before the Rajasthan High Court to challenge the show cause notice dated 03.02.1966 and order dated 04.03.1966 issued under Section 132(5) of the Income-Tax Act; on 17.05.1966 the Rajasthan High Court dismissed the writ petitions, inter alia, holding that the Income Tax authorities and Excise authorities had jurisdiction to institute proceedings against C.S. Goenka under the Income-Tax Act and the said rules and rejected the assessee's case that he had filed application dated 18.11.1965 with the State Bank of India, Indore Branch for disclosure / investment of gold in the Gold Bond Scheme while observing that the application appeared to be forged and the evidence pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....5.9. On 01.06.1971 the Gold Control Administrator exercising suo moto powers under the said rules issued show cause notice to C.S. Goenka to show cause as to why the order of the Collector dated 03.01.1970 should not be set aside and the gold be confiscated; this show cause notice was challenged by C.S. Goenka by filing a writ petition before the Delhi High Court; Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition; an appeal was thereafter filed against the judgment of the Delhi High Court before the Supreme Court; on 09.08.1973 the Supreme Court in CMP No.3057 of 1973 (numbered as Civil Appeal No.723 of 1973) directed stay of all proceedings under the Gold Control Act including the show cause notice dated 01.06.1971 pending the final disposal of the appeal. 5.10. On 29.12.1975 C.S. Goenka made voluntary disclosure under Section 14(1) of the Voluntary Disclosure of Income and Wealth Ordinance, 1975 of his wealth of Rs. 18,00,000.00 which included the value of the seized gold (85,617.80 grams) at Rs. 7,50,000.00. Minutes were recorded between C.S. Goenka and the Commissioner of Income Tax that the seized gold will be released and sold and out of the sale proceeds, the Income-Tax and We....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1968-69 to 1975-76 partly allowed the appeals and granted further reliefs to C.S. Goenka. Tribunal however dismissed 8 wealth-tax appeals filed by C.S. Goenka for the assessment years 1976-77 to 1998-99. It was the contention of C.S. Goenka before the aforesaid authorities that the value of the gold had been wrongly included while computing his total wealth for the period 1961-62 to 1998-99. Being aggrieved C.S. Goenka filed 39 reference applications in respect of the assessment years 1961-62 to 1992-93 calling upon the Tribunal to refer to this Court, the following 5 questions of law which are extracted as under: "1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in law in including the market value of the said gold for the computation of the net wealth of the Petitioner (Chiranjilal Shrimal Goenka) ? 2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in law in rejecting the Assessee's submissions that even if the gold was to be included in the net wealth, the value thereof to be taken ought to be Nil or ought to be arrived at bearing in mind the liability for confiscation, fine and penalty and bear....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on Nos.3535 of 1990 and 529 of 1994 seeking stay of recovery proceedings by the IncomeTax department. Writ Petition No.3565 of 1990 was withdrawn on 09.04.1991 with liberty to file a fresh writ petition. Writ Petition No. 529 of 1994 was allowed and the additional condition of adequate security to be furnished by the assessee was set aside. 5.19. On 22.09.2004 Notice of Demand was issued to Sushila N. Rungta by the Recovery Officer calling upon her to pay Rs. 5,01,86,611.00 alongwith interest. On 17.02.2005 order of attachment of her residential flat was passed by the respondents. On 09.03.2005 Sushila N. Rungta filed Writ Petition No.793 of 2005 in this Court. Several ad-interim orders were passed. However by order dated 25.07.2005 the writ petition was admitted, attachment order was stayed and it was directed that the writ petition be heard alongwith Wealth Tax Reference Nos.2 of 1992, 4 of 1993, 3 of 1994, 8 of 1994, 102 of 1998, 11 of 2000 and Income Tax Appeal Nos.362 of 2003 and 608 of 2003. 5.20. On 22.08.2016, Wealth-tax Reference Nos. 2 of 1992, 4 of 1993, 8 of 1994, 8 of 1991, 3 of 1994, 102 of 1998, 11 of 2000 and Income Tax Appeal Nos.362 of 2003 and 608 of 2003 w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd/or direction directing the Respondents to forthwith release 85617 grams of gold, jewellery, cash and other valuable articles seized from the premises as per the Panchanama and hand it over to the Petitioners / Applicants." 5.25. Since all the above cases were already taken up for final hearing by this Court, the amendment was not immediately granted and kept in abeyance for consideration at a later stage. Hearing by the parties was concluded on 11.03.2021 and judgment reserved. 5.26. In the above background we are therefore called upon to consider and give our opinion on the following 7 questions of law; 5 questions of law in the Wealth-tax References and Income-Tax Appeals which were framed by this court on 08.09.2016 and the 2 questions of law in Wealth-tax Application No.3 of 1984 which are extracted together for convenience :- "(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in law including the market value of the gold and gold coins in the computation of net wealth of the appellant ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in law in rejecting the assessee's submissions....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hter Bharati Saraf as her legal heirs. Save and except the above statement that Sushila N. Rungta is the daughter and sole executrix and beneficiary of the will of C.S. Goenka, no other document evidencing the above issue by a civil court / statutory authority is placed on record in the present proceedings. Ofcourse, the same is also not disputed by the respondent. 7. Mr. Kamat, learned counsel appearing for the appellants / petitioners at the outset submitted that the Order-in-Original dated 03.01.1970 passed by the Collector Central Excise, New Delhi directing release of the seized gold to C.S. Goenka on payment of penalty of Rs. 25,000/- has become final; appeal against the said order to the Gold Control Administrator being dismissed on 28.06.1971; the Gold Controller Administrator thereafter suo moto issued show cause notice under the Defence of India Rules to C.S. Goenka; the said show cause notice was challenged before the Delhi High Court and thereafter carried to the Supreme Court whereafter Supreme Court stayed all proceedings on 09.08.1973; Supreme Court by its final order dated 30.10.2018 held that the show cause notice did not survive as the Gold Control Act was repe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssioner (Appeals) for the assessment year 1961-62 is also erroneous when it holds that gold becomes exempted assets under the Wealth-Tax Act only when the said gold is invested in the Gold Bond Scheme and the Bonds are issued to the assessee; ignoring the fact that the gold was seized from C.S. Goenka and never in the custody and possession of C.S. Goenka to enable him to invest in the Gold Bond Scheme; the said order confirming addition of the value of the seized gold as if in the hands of C.S. Goenka was contrary to law and did not adhere to and take into cognizance the findings returned in the order dated 03.01.1970 passed by the Collector, Central Excise directing release of the seized gold after adjudication. 7.4. Mr. Kamat submitted that the common order dated 29.09.1982 passed by the 2nd Appellate Authority i.e. the Tribunal for the assessment years 1961-62 to 1967-68 has once again erroneously and incorrectly held that there is no denial that the assessee stood possessed and owned the gold on the respective valuation dates even though it was the assessee's case that since the gold had been seized by the authorities it should either be treated as not owned by the asse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t, the same were directed to be disposed of alongwith the pending writ petition. 7.6. He submitted that C.S. Goenka, his legal heir Sushila N. Rungta and the petitioners were not in a position to exercise their right of ownership in the seized gold on the respective dates of valuation since the gold was seized on 06.12.1965 and continues to remain so till date; that though the gold belonged to the ownership of the assessee, his right on the valuation date was in jeopardy and mere legal ownership in the seized gold was not enough to fasten wealth tax liability on the assessee in respect of the market value of the seized gold as done by the revenue. He therefore submitted that the market value of the seized gold had to be excluded from the computation of net wealth of the assessee for the respective assessment years and the authorities be directed to return the seized gold to the petitioners. 8. In support of his submissions, Mr. Kamath has referred to and relied on the following decisions of the Supreme Court and Gujarat High Court:- 1. Murari Mohan Dutta Vs. Commissioner of Wealth Tax (1991) SCC Online Cal 323 :: (1993) 200 ITR 226; 2. Commissioner of Income....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... page 43) : "Counsel for the assessee, in our opinion, was justified in contending that a man who was the owner of movable property like a diamond or jewellery and if that property or goods had been lost due to stealing or theft, even then if the assessee was made liable as the owner of that property and as such liable to pay wealth-tax ad infinitum year after year in respect of that property that would lead to great hardship and anomaly. We might here mention the observations of the Select Committee on the 'assets stolen, lost or destroyed' which is noted in paragraph 13 of the report and are as follows : 'With regard to the definition of "net wealth", the Committee have noted the assurance given by the Minister of Finance that if any asset referred to in the said definition was lost or stolen or destroyed, it would not be included in computing the net wealth of an asset, provided the same had not been insured and that necessary instructions in this respect would be issued to the authorities concerned'." 10. In our view, a person whose valuable property had been seized could not exercise the right of ownership so far as possession, enjoym....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e expression of human intention. It is well to remember the warning administered by judge Learned Hand that one should not make fortress out of dictionary but remember that statutes always have some purpose or object to accomplish and sympathetic and imaginative discovery is the surest guide to their meaning. 47. We have noted the object of Section 16(3) of the Act which has to be read in conjunction with Section 24(2) in this case for the present purpose. In the purpose of a particular provision is easily discernible from the whole scheme of the Act which in this case is, to counteract the effect of the transfer of assets so far as computation of income of the assessee is concerned then bearing that purpose in mind, we should find out the intention from the language used by the Legislature and if strict literal construction leads to an absurd result i.e. result not intended to be subserved by the object of the legislation found out in the manner indicated before, and if another construction is possible apart from strict literal construction then that construction should be preferred to the strict literal construction. Though equity and taxation are often strangers, attemp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the rule or the regulation. Such a defence cannot be pleaded if a clear statutory prerequisite which effectuates the object and the purpose of the statute has not been met. Certainly, it means that the Court should determine whether the statute has been followed sufficiently so as to carry out the intent for which the statute was enacted and not a mirror image type of strict compliance. Substantial compliance means "actual compliance in respect to the substance essential to every reasonable objective of the statute" and the court should determine whether the statute has been followed sufficiently so as to carry out the intent of the statute and accomplish the reasonable objectives for which it was passed. 33. A Fiscal statute generally seeks to preserve the need to comply strictly with regulatory requirements that are important, especially when a party seeks the benefits of an exemption clause that are important. Substantial compliance of an enactment is insisted, where mandatory and directory requirements are lumped together, for in such a case, if mandatory requirements are complied with, it will be proper to say that the enactment has been substantially complied with n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... transfer of any land, value of the property or land, as the case may be, would be normally reduced and the valuation is to be ascertained taking note of the restrictions and prohibitions contained in the Ceiling Act as if the land is notified as excess land. [iii] Once the competent authority issues any notification under Section 10[1] or Section 10[3] of the Land Ceiling Act, the land has to be deemed to have been acquired by the Government and what the assessee owned was the right to compensation and in such case, the compensation amount would only be the maximum compensation as provided under the Ceiling Act which is to be taken into consideration." 9. PER CONTRA Mr. Suresh Kumar learned counsel appearing for the respondents has supported the orders dated 22.03.1979 passed by the Wealth Tax Officer, order dated 18.02.1981 passed by the first appellate authority i.e. the Wealth-tax Commissioner (Appeals) and the order dated 19.09.1982 passed by the second appellate authority i.e. the Tribunal and contended that the conclusion by the Tribunal that the appellants / petitioners are not entitled to invoke equity jurisdiction of this Court and that the assessee stood poss....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he respective years. Therefore the references be answered accordingly. 10. In support of his submissions, Mr. Suresh Kumar has referred to and relied on the following decisions :- (i) Jayantilal Amritlal Vs. Commissioner of Wealth Tax (supra) (ii) Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. Purshottam N. Amersey [1969] 71 ITR 180 (Bombay) (iii) Ahmed G.H. Ariff Vs. Commissioner of Wealth Tax [1970] 76 ITR 471 (SC) 10.1. In the case of Jayantilal Amritlal (supra), the income tax authorities had searched the assessee's premises between November 18 and 21 November 1964 and large quantity of gold in various forms was recovered and seized. The value of the gold was found to be Rs. 2,83,320/-. Central excise officials seized the gold on 17.12.1964 and proceedings under the Defence of India (Gold Control) Rules, 1963 were initiated against the assessee. The assessee unsuccessfully challenged the seizure of the gold and proceedings against him before the Gujarat High Court and the Supreme Court. On 30.09.1975 Collector of Central Excise, Baroda passed an order of confiscation of the gold under Section 71 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 and passed a further order to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...."1. The Income Tax Appellant Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") has, at the instance of the assessee, referred the following two questions for our opinion under Section 27 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") : 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was the owner of the seized gold articles on each of the eight valuation dates ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the cloud on ownership in the form of seizure did not reduce the value of the gold `if sold in the open market' for the purposes of wealth-tax assessments for the eight years ? Facts giving rise to this reference are as follows : The income tax authorities searched the premises of the assessee known as "Shree Sadan" between November 18 and November 21,1964. In the course of the search, large quantity of gold in various forms was recovered from the strong room in the cellar. The gold which was recovered was in the form of 154 gold coins and 8 gold bars. The value of the gold found was Rs. 2,83,320. The Cen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at if there is a legal bar or restriction or impediment upon the alienation and transfer, such bar, restriction or impediment has to be taken into account. But if there is no such bar, restriction or impediment, there would be no fetter which would in any way affect the market value of the property in question. In the instant case, gold articles were merely seized by the excise authorities. They were not confiscated on the relevant dates though in view of the contravention of the relevant rules of the Gold (Control) Rules, they were liable to be confiscated. In our opinion, the seizure and possibility of confiscation, however did not in any way impair the ownership of the assessee of these articles. The assessee continued to be the full owner of the articles son the relevant valuation dates. Mere possibility of confiscation cannot be said to impose legal restriction, limitation or impediment on the ownership of the assessee. Therefore, in our opinion the mere fact that the gold articles in question were liable to be confiscated, does not in any way affect the market value of the articles under s. 7(1) of the Act as urged by Mr. Shah. It was not disputed by Mr. Shah that it is to be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....est was 'Nil' was erroneous. It was held that merely because the property was not capable of being transferred is not a consideration which ought to have prevailed with the Tribunal. This Court held that the words 'if sold in the open market' as appearing in sub-section (1) of Section 7 would have to be interpreted in a manner of proper construction of the provisions of the said Section. 10.5. In the case of Ahmed G.H. Ariff (supra) the appellants, who were the beneficiaries under the deed of wakf, were paying income-tax on the amount which was being received by them in terms of that deed from the mutawalli. In the year 1957 the Wealth-tax Act came into force. During the assessment years 1957-58 and 1958-59 appellants were not only assessed to income-tax in respect of the income received by them from the wakf estate but were also assessed to wealth-tax by the Wealth-tax Officer on the basis that they had a share in the wakf estate. The total value of the immovable property belonging to the wakf estate was valued at 20 times the annual municipal valuation and 1/6th of the value of the immovable property along with other properties was taken to be the net wealth of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for the parties have been considered. Also duly examined and considered the materials on record. 13. Before we advert to adjudicate the issues, we may briefly refer to the relevant statutory provisions as are applicable to the present case. 13.1. Section 7 of the Wealth Tax Act, is relevant and reads thus :- "7. Value of assets how to be determined. - (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), the value of any asset, other than cash, for the purposes of this Act shall be its value as on the valuation date determined in the manner laid down in Schedule III. (2) The value of the house belonging to the assessee and exclusively used by him for residential purposes throughout the period of twelve months immediately proceeding the valuation date, may, at the option of the assessee, on the valuation date next following the date on which he became the owner of the house or the valuation date relevant to the assessment year commencing on the 1st day of April, 1971, whichever valuation date is later." 14. In the present case, it is evident that seizure of the gold had taken place on 07.12.1965 and from that date onwards the gold is in the cus....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....WT v. Smt. Sumitra Devi Jalan [1974] 96 ITR 35. In that case, the Division Bench observed as follows (at page 43) : "the right, however, was in jeopardy on the relevant valuation date because according to the assessee she had lost the shares because of stealing or otherwise. Therefore, all that she had at the relevant moment was the right to recover her equitable ownership in respect of these shares. The Tribunal or the Revenue authority, however, had not considered whether that right of equitable ownership was capable of having any market value in terms of Section 7 (1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. We need not, therefore, advert to this aspect of the matter. It may, incidentally be mentioned that in the case of Smt. Chandra Jalan v. CWT (in Matter No. 378 of 1962) in respect of dividends declared in East Pakistan which the shareholder had the right to get was property within the meaning of the definition of asset in Section 2 (e) of the Act, it was held that in respect of such property, in view of the restrictions in respect of such property, the Wealth-tax Officer was not justified in estimating the value on the face value thereof." 9. We may also refer to the o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d which though belonged to the petitioners, but was seized in 1965 and continues to remains seized till date with the Collector of Central Excise, for the purpose of filing wealth tax returns. Interpretation of sub-section (1) of Section 7 and more specifically the expression "if sold in the open market" do not contemplate actual sale and the actual state of the market as held in the case of Aims Oxygen Pvt. Ltd. (supra); however in the facts of the present case if the petitioners predecessor was prevented from exercising his right due to seizure of the gold, it could not be said that the assessee continued to be the full owner of the said gold on the relevant valuation dates. In the present case despite the order of adjudication dated 03.01.1970 passed by the Collector of Central Excise to invest the gold in the Gold Bond Scheme, the same was not released by the respondents. 17. We are therefore not in agreement with the view expressed by the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Jayantilal Amritlal (supra), which held that since the gold articles in question were liable to be confiscated it does not in any way affect the market value of the articles under Sec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....department was not maintainable in law as seizure. Considering the above facts, the Adjudicating Officer returned the findings in paragraphs 14 to 20 of the said order which are extracted below for reference:- "14. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, I hold that the seizure of this gold by Central Excise officers on 9.12.65 was valid. I do not accept the plea of the party charged that since gold was not seized under Gold Control Rules on 6.12.65, it cannot be confiscated under Gold Control Rules. I also do not accept the plea of the party charged that the proceedings under the Gold Control Rules are barred just because the gold had been seized by the Income-tax Department from the party charged 3 days prior to its seizure by the Central Excise Officers under the Gold Control Rules. I hold that Central Excise Officers rightly seized the gold under the Gold Control Rules on 9.12.65 and I declare that the seizure was valid. 15. I concede the plea of the party charged that he had intended to invest their gold in gold bonds. This intention is clearly borne out from the evidence on records. The depositions of Shri. Vanchinath, Income-tax Officer dur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e:- "15. I do not also believe that the finding given by the Collector in his order was in any way binding on the Income-tax authorities in their proceedings under the Income-tax and other allied Acts. In fact, after the Collector passed the order, the Income-tax authorities served an attachment order on the gold. The contention made by Shri. Joshi that the order passed by the Collector is binding on the Income-tax Officer by virtue of the provisions of Section 84 of the Gold (Control) Act does not have much force as the finality referred to in the aforesaid section is with reference to the proceedings under the Gold (Control) Act. 16. A point could be raised that even in a case where a patently wrong or even malafide order has been passed by an Adjudicating Officer in favour of a person, no action would possible to modify such an order as the person concerned would evidently not file any appeal. The law has not left any such vacuum. It is true that unless the person in respect of who order has been passed files an appeal, no ractification of the order would be possible under Section 80 of the Gold (Control) Act. In such an eventuality, however, the remedy would l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....id Act relevant to computation of the net wealth of a person under the Wealth Tax Act, 1957. Section 8(2) reads as follows:- "8(1) .... (2) In computing the net wealth of a person under Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957) the value of the assets represented by the income, which under sub-section (1) is not includible in his income profit or gains, shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the said Act, not be taken into account in an assessment or reassessment for any assessment year made under the said Act on or after the 20th day of October, 1965." 20. From the above, it is discernible in the present case, that the original assessee would not be liable to wealth tax assessment on the value of the seized gold if the assessments were made on any date after 20.10.1965. We may also usefully extract the observations and findings returned by the Tribunal in its order dated 29.09.1981 which finds favour with the original assessee. The said extract in paragraph 18 reads as under:- ".... We are aware that the situation the assessee finds himself is brought about by the department themselves. It is by their action that the assessee had been deprived of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... under the Gold Bond Scheme which was then in operation, can in law charge the assessee to wealth-tax on the footing that the assessee continues to be the owner of the gold (and not gold bonds) and was thus liable to wealthtax on the value of the said gold and gold coins ? Ans. : No (5) Whether, the Tribunal erred in law in holding that the rules and principles of equity would have no application to the present case ? Ans. : Yes (6) Whether, the Tribunal erred in law in valuing gold on the basis of a national sale when the assessee was not in possession of the gold and could not have sold the gold but could have at best entered into an agreement to sell the gold with a condition to deliver the gold, if and when he became entitled to and acquired possession thereof ? Ans. : Yes (7) Whether, instead of determining the value of gold on the basis of a notional sale of gold which was not legally possible, the Tribunal ought to have included, if at all, the consideration which any wise and prudent person would have offered for entering into an agreement to purchase the gold subject to the condition that delivery of gold would be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....x Act, 1961 seeking recovery in accordance with the provisions of Section 222 to Section 232 of the Income Tax Act and the second schedule to the said Act and the rules made thereunder along with interest, cost, charges and expenses. The facts which have been narrated in the writ petition are identical to those in the references in as much as the same relate to seizure of 85617 grams of gold from the original assessee and consequential notice of demand for Rs. 5,01,86,611.00 along with interest. Petitioners have challenged the notice of demand on various grounds i.e the notice of demand does not contain any details of the alleged dues of the estate of late Shri. C.S. Goenka; petitioners could not have been issued notice of recovery as the petitioner was never served with any notice of demand earlier; the Income Tax Officer failed to give effect to all the orders of the appellate authorities and give credit to the amounts recovered by the department from the debtors of late Shri. C.S. Goenka (original assessee); if such credit was given then there would not be any tax dues payable by the estate of late Shri. C.S. Goenka, rather the estate shall be entitled to refund; that the notice....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rayer for seeking forthwith release of 85,617.80 grams of gold, jewellery, cash and other valuable articles form the premises of the original assessee as per the panchnama to the petitioners is concerned, it is seen from the record i.e IA No.16 of 2015 in Civil Appeal No.723 of 1973 filed in the Supreme Court, that the late Shri. C.S. Goenka had three legal heirs namely Smt. Sushila N. Rungta - daughter, Radheshyam Goenka - son and Rajkumari R. Goenka - daughter. It appears that an arbitrator was appointed by the Supreme Court vide order dated 01.11.1991 to settle the dispute as to who would be the legal heir to the estate of late Shri. C.S. Goenka. Probate Suit No.65/85 was also filed wherein the genuineness of the will dated 29.10.1982 of the original deceased assessee C.S. Goenka was held undisputed and the genuineness of the will was conceded on 27.10.1999 by the non applicants therein. The learned arbitrator passed an award holding that the will in favour of Sushila N. Rungta was inoperative and Radheshyam was the sole heir as adopted son. This award was challenged by Sushila N. Rungta in the Supreme Court. On 01.12.2000 the Supreme Court held that the award of the learned arb....