TMI Blog2000 (7) TMI 44X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ngzeb Road, New Delhi, was bona fide and there is no material on the record to hold that the value was deliberately understated by the assessee ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the assessee discharged the onus that lay on her under the Explanation to section 18(1)(c) of the Wealth-tax Act to prove that she was not guilty of gross or wilful neglect in understating her wealth ?" The factual position is to be noted in brief. The dispute relates to the assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70. For the assessment years 1966-67 and 1967-68, the assessee declared the value of the property at No. 9, Aurangzeb Road, New Delhi, at Rs. 12 lakhs but for the assessment yea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cancelled. An application for reference made under section 27(1) was not accepted. This court has directed reference and the questions as set out above were referred for our opinion : Learned counsel for the Revenue submitted that there was clear attempt to understate the value of the property. The valuation adopted at different times clearly establishes that the assessee had not disclosed the correct figure. There is no appearance by the assessee in spite of the service. While dealing with the factual aspects and the conclusions arrived at by the Tribunal, we think it necessary to extract the relevant portion of the Tribunal's order which reads as follows : "We have considered the submission of the parties and gone through the reco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... years 1957-58 to 1963-64. In the assessment year 1964-65, Dr. Krupp returned a value of Rs. 11 lakhs which was also accepted by the Wealth-tax Officer as the correct market value. In the assessment year 1965-66, Dr. Krupp no doubt returned the value of this property at Rs. 17 lakhs, but he was bound to do so, as he had sold the property for that amount and was leaving the country and did not want to be embroiled in any dispute with the wealth-tax authorities. The Tribunal observed that otherwise it could not be expected that its value would go up by six lakhs in one year. The Tribunal then referred to the value of the District Valuation Officer in his report dated August 16, 1974, at Rs. 13,26,000. The Tribunal took into account the followi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the valuation report of an approved valuer. A specific note to this effect was appended to the return as follows : 'The value of the property known as No. 9, Aurangzeb Road, New Delhi, has been taken on the basis of the valuation made by approved valuers plus 2 lakhs. The relevant certificate will be produced when required.' It would not, therefore, be correct to say that the assessee declared the value of this property at Rs. 7,76,800 without any basis. The basis was the approved valuer's report. It may be that the approved valuer had erred in estimating the value, but it cannot be said that the declaration of the value was without any basis. As seen above, the Tribunal had estimated the value of this property at Rs. 11 lakhs takin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
