{"id":22074,"date":"2021-10-04T18:54:38","date_gmt":"2021-10-04T13:24:38","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/nirajkumar-n-rungta-v-cwt-2021435-itr-179-201-dtr-289-320-ctr-289-bom-hc\/"},"modified":"2021-10-04T18:54:38","modified_gmt":"2021-10-04T13:24:38","slug":"nirajkumar-n-rungta-v-cwt-2021435-itr-179-201-dtr-289-320-ctr-289-bom-hc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/nirajkumar-n-rungta-v-cwt-2021435-itr-179-201-dtr-289-320-ctr-289-bom-hc\/","title":{"rendered":"Nirajkumar N. Rungta v. CWT (2021)435 ITR 179\/ 201 DTR 289\/ 320 CTR 289 (Bom) (HC)"},"content":{"rendered":"

On reference the Court held that\u00a0 the seizure of the gold had taken place on December 7, 1965, and from that date onwards the gold was in the custody of the Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur. The gold was not smuggled nor was it foreign marked gold. The gold was indigenous which the original assessee had acquired over a period of years and had kept with him for future security. The original assessee paid the penalty of Rs. 25,000 as directed under rule 126L(16) of the Gold Control Rules, 1962 (corresponding to section\u00a074\u00a0of the\u00a0Gold Control Act, 1968\u00a0) for seeking return, release and investment of the seized gold in the Gold Bond Scheme. However, the gold was not released, nor invested till date thereby rendering the valuable right of the assessee completely infructuous. 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 October 20, 1965.The court directed that the Department shall forthwith release 85,617 grams of gold, jewellery, cash and other valuable articles as per the panchanama and hand it over to the petitioners being the legal heirs of the assessee.(<\/em> AY. \u00a01961-62 to 1975-76, 1979-80 to 1984-85, 1986-87 to 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1995-96, 1996-97 to 1998-99)<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

On reference the Court held that\u00a0 the seizure of the gold had taken place on December 7, 1965, and from that date onwards the gold was in the custody of the Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur. The gold was not smuggled nor was it foreign marked gold. The gold was indigenous which the original assessee had acquired over a period of years and had kept with him for future security. The original assessee paid the penalty of Rs. 25,000 as directed under rule 126L(16) of the Gold Control Rules, 1962 (corresponding to section\u00a074\u00a0of the\u00a0Gold Control Act, 1968\u00a0) for seeking return, release and investment of the seized gold in the Gold Bond Scheme. However, the gold was not released, nor invested till date thereby rendering the valuable right of the assessee completely infructuous. 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 October 20, 1965.The court directed that the Department shall forthwith release 85,617 grams of gold, jewellery, cash and other valuable articles as per the panchanama and hand it over to the petitioners being the legal heirs of the assessee.(<\/em> AY. \u00a01961-62 to 1975-76, 1979-80 to 1984-85, 1986-87 to 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1995-96, 1996-97 to 1998-99)<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Wealth-Tax Act, 1957 <\/p>\n

S. 7 : Value of assets – Assets seized – Possession of revenue Authorities \u2014 Value of assets cannot be included in net wealth- The court directed that the Department shall forthwith release 85,617 grams of gold, jewellery, cash and other valuable articles as per the panchanama and hand it over to the petitioners being the legal heirs of the assessee [ S.7(1) , ITAct , S.132 ] <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-22074","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-digest"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-5K2","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22074","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=22074"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22074\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":22075,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22074\/revisions\/22075"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=22074"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=22074"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=22074"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}