COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. LALCHAND BHABUTMAL JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question referred to us by the Tribunal is as under :

(2.) WE would like to reframe the question although we are conscious that the question as reframed takes within its compass the further question which was proposed by the Revenue which was specifically disallowed. The question as reframed by us will read as under :

(3.) IN this case, the Departmental Representative had very properly apprised the Tribunal of various aspects of the matter such as contradictions in the assessee's case from time to time, improvements made by him in his statement given to the customs authorities, the enquiries made with the ITO at Rajasthan and the report submitted by the said officer. On the basis of this mass of facts, the Departmental Representative had urged that it had to be held that the assessee was the owner of the seized gold and was, accordingly, liable to be assessed on the value thereof on the footing that the value represented his income assessable for the year relevant to the asst. yr. 1962 63.