Mere CBDT Instructions cannot absolve individuals of their obligation to explain the source and nature of their gold holdings, even where such holdings fall within the limits specified therein.
In a recent judgment, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that merely showing certain press release and circulars permitting the holding of gold to a certain extent will not amount to accounting for the possession of the said assets
ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
5260 (2026) (11) abacus.in SC
In The instant case, the Prosecution had challenged the order passed by the Patna High Court quashing the order of cognizance passed by the Special Judge, Vigilance under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (the Act).
In this case, a First Information Report (FIR) was registered at the Vigilance Police Station against the accused and her husband for owning assets disproportionate to known sources of income. Later, a chargesheet was filed only against the respondent for the said offences.
Subsequently, the Special Judge, took the cognizance against the accused. She challenged it before the Patna High Court and relied upon the CBDT Instruction No.1916 dated 11th May, 1994 and Press Release issued by the Ministry of Finance, dated 1st December, 2016 which provides that a married woman is entitled to possess 500 grams of gold, an unmarried lady is entitled to possess 250 grams of gold and a male is entitled to possess 100 grams of gold. It was argued that since the respondent is entitled to possess gold, there could be no prosecution under the Act.
As stated above, the Patna High Court accepted the stand of the accused and quashed the order of cognizance passed by the Special Judge observing that if the gold is calculated with reference to the aforesaid Circular, the petitioner does not possess more than 750 Grams which is the permissible limit.
Before the Hon’ble Supreme Court the Prosecution contended that entitlement to possess gold is one thing, accounting for it when called upon in a prosecution under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Act, is a wholly different matter.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that Merely showing certain press release and circulars permitting the holding of gold to a certain extent will not amount to accounting for the possession of the said assets.
Accordingly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court set aside the impugned order of the High Court and restored it to file the order of cognizance taken by the Court of Special Judge.
Download Full Judgment Click Here >>
- CBDT Instruction can not absolve persons to explain source of gold within limits specified – SC
- Empanelment of General Observers for ICSI Examinations December 2026. Last date 16.11.2026
- ITAT address some important issues relating to deduction u/s 80IA
- Mere carry forward of loss can not be denied for belated return – ITAT
- Sales duly recorded in books & VAT returns, can’t be held bogus without cogent adverse material
