COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX Vs. ARUNA PAUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this reference under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, the following questions of law have been referred to this court for the assessment years 1975-76, 1976-77 and 1977-78 :

(2.) 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 1975-76, 1976-77 and 1977-78, In all these three years, while filing her wealth-tax returns, the assessee declared the value of jewellery and ornaments held by her on the relevant valuation dates at Rs. 59,286, Rs. 68,927 and Rs. 68,927, respectively. The Wealth-tax Officer, while completing the assessments of the assessee for the said years under Section 16(3) of the said Act, assessed the value of jewellery and ornaments for the said three years at Rs. 1,94,000, Rs. 2,13,700 and Rs. 2,33,000, respectively, The Wealth-tax Officer referred to the fact that the assessee had filed the disclosure petition under the Voluntary Disclosure of Income and Wealth Act, 1976, accompanied by returns of her net wealth in respect of the assessment years 1965-66 to 1974-75 and, in such disclosure, the assessee declared the value of her jewellery at Rs. 1,83,000 as on March 31, 1974. Based on the value of jewellery and ornaments so declared by the assessee in her disclosure petition in respect of the assessment year 1974-75, the Wealth-tax Officer estimated the value of jewellery and ornaments in respect of the subsequent three years at Rs. 1,94,000, Rs. 2,13,700 and Rs. 2,33,000, respectively.

(3.) Before the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals), the assessee submitted that the value of jewellery in her wealth-tax returns for the assessment year 1975-76 was declared by her at Rs. 59,286 based on the valuation report dated March 2, 1981, given by a Government approved valuer. It was also submitted that 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, had rejected such contentions and had upheld the valuation of jewellery for the purpose of charge to wealth-tax in respect of the assessment year 1974-75 on the same figure at which the same was declared by the assessee in her wealth-tax return filed along with the disclosure petition. The Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals), therefore, upheld the valuation of jewellery and ornaments as adopted by the Wealth-tax Officer.