TMI Blog1972 (1) TMI 21X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f, assessments made under the Wealth-tax Act is upheld - assessee is in a position to produce any acceptable material to support her plea that she in fact inherited only jewels worth about Rs. 3,350 from the deceased, she is not estopped in putting forward that plea in the subsequent years - - - - - Dated:- 17-1-1972 - Judge(s) : RAMANUJAM., V. RAMASWAMY. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by RAMANUJAM J.- This reference has been made by the Tribunal under section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, and the question referred to us for decision is whether in the circumstances the wealth-tax levied on the legal representative of the deceased who is the assessee, is in accordance with law. The facts and circumstances which l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id not in fact pass to her on the death of her brother. But this contention of the assessee was not substantiated by any positive and acceptable evidence. Therefore, the jewels worth about Rs. 1,00,000 were held to have passed to the assessee on the death of her brother on October 26, 1959. The proceedings under the Estate Duty Act came finally to this court, and in Estate of Late G. Ramaswami Naidu v. Controller of Estate Duty, this court has affirmed the decision of the Tribunal holding that the jewels worth about Rs. 1,00,000 had passed to the assessee on the death of her brother along with other properties. In the proceedings under the Wealth-tax Act for the assessment years 1960-61 and 1961-62 also, the assessee contended that she di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the basis that he was in possession of jewels worth about Rs. 1,00,000 after rejecting his contention that he has parted with a portion of the jewels during that year and the said assessment has become final. Therefore, the assessment under the Wealth-tax Act made against the assessee's brother for the year ending March 31, 1959, is a relevant circumstance in deciding the question as to whether the assessee's brother left jewels worth about Rs. 1,00,000. It is not the assessee's case that after the assessment for the year ending March 31, 1959, but before his death, her brother had disposed of any portion of the jewels, and there is no evidence either as to such disposal. As a matter of fact, no attempt was made in that regard. Therefor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssed by her brother at the time of his death. We have to make it clear that we are not entirely basing our decision on the findings given in the estate duty proceedings. As the assessee has not produced any acceptable evidence to substantiate her case that her brother left jewels worth only Rs. 3,350 and that she inherited only those jewels, and to displace the evidentiary value of the final orders passed under the Wealth-tax Act against the deceased and under the Estate Duty Act against the assessee herself, we have to agree with the view of the Tribunal and uphold the assessments made under the Wealth-tax Act for the two years in question. But we, however, make it clear that in case the assessee is in a position to produce any acceptable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
