TMI Blog1993 (8) TMI 28X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respectively, when the assessee herself disclosed the value of jewellery at Rs. 1,83,000 as on March 31, 1974 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the, Tribunal was justified in relying on the valuation report filed by the assessee for determining the value of jewellery when such appeal by the assessee for the assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-75 were rejected itself by the Tribunal in its consolidated order for assessment years 1967-68 to 1974-75 in Wealth-tax Appeals Nos. 1289 to 1295 of 1980 ?" This reference relates to the wealth-tax assessment of the assessee, an individual, in respect of the valuation dates March 31, 1975, March 31, 1976, and March 31, 1977, corresponding to the assessment years 1975-7 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t while making voluntary disclosure in the earlier years, the assessee did neither file any details of her jewellery nor did she furnish any valuation report. The case of the assessee was that since she had now obtained a valuation report from a Government approved valuer in respect of her jewellery and ornaments and since such report has now been filed with the Wealth-tax Officer, it was wrong on his part to take the value of the jewellery and ornaments at estimated figures based on the valuation declared in the disclosure petition for the earlier years. The Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) found that a similar contention was advanced before the Tribunal in the earlier years as well but the Tribunal by its order dated February 28, 1982 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... may be entitled to look upon the valuation report now filed showing a much lower value with suspicion ; but without bringing on record any further material, the tax authorities cannot reject the valuation report filed by the assessee. The Tribunal also observed that the value admitted by the assessee in her voluntary disclosure has been established to be erroneous and the same is, therefore, neither conclusive nor binding on the assessee. The Tribunal also referred to its earlier decision in respect of the assessment year 1974-75 but chose to distinguish it on the ground that there the Tribunal placed strong reliance on the declaration made by the assessee in her voluntary disclosure petition and the same was held to be final and binding up ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cannot take advantage of her own wrong. It is true that subsequently she filed the valuation report dated March 2, 1981, containing details of 18 items of jewellery held by her as on March 31, 1976, with the aggregate valuation of Rs. 68,827. But it is not known whether this valuation report was a complete report in respect of all her jewellery and ornaments held by her as on March 31, 1976. She did not file any affidavit nor did she make any declaration to the effect that she did not own and/or possess any other items than those 18 items as detailed in her valuation report dated March 2, 1981, filed in relation to the assessment year 1976-77. If this was her case, the burden lay on her to satisfy the Wealth-tax Officer by filing affidavits ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nish details of jewellery, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was entitled to claim that the value of the jewellery should not be taken as per value given in the voluntary disclosure but should be determined on the basis of the valuer's report furnished at the time of assessment showing details of jewellery at a lower value, observing that there does not appear to be any dispute about the details and nature of the jewellery articles ?" This Bench observed that the assessee cannot be permitted to say that the value of the assets disclosed in the declaration on the basis whereof taxes have been paid and in respect of which the assessee obtained the benefit or immunity under the Voluntary Disclosure of Income and Wealth Ordi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee to reconcile the position by filing affidavit and/or by producing other evidence, which the assessee, in our view, had miserably failed to do. The Tribunal, in our view, was also wrong in observing as under : "Value admitted in the declaration has been established to be erroneous and thus not conclusive upon the assessee." The aforesaid observation of the Tribunal is wholly erroneous since the value admitted in the declaration filed by the assessee in her disclosure petition was established to be correct even by the Tribunal itself in its order dated February 28, 1982. In that view of the matter, we answer both the questions referred by the Tribunal to this court in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. There will be no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
