1989 (9) TMI 134 - AT - Wealth-tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Valuation of jewellery by WTO and reduction of its value by Dy. CWT(A).
2. Cross objection by the assessee regarding the valuation of lost jewellery.
3. Delay in submission of cross objection and its condonation.
4. Dispute over the value of jewellery lost by the assessee.
5. Interpretation of relevant legal provisions and past judgments.
6. Contradictions in facts presented by both parties.
7. Consideration of the assurance given by the Minister of Finance.
8. Decision on the appeal and cross objection.

Analysis:

1. The WTO assessed the value of jewellery at Rs. 8,00,000 based on a valuation done in 1976. The assessee had lost possession of jewellery valued at Rs. 5,20,000 due to legal proceedings. The Dy. CWT(A) reduced the value to Rs. 1,20,000, considering the ongoing litigation and estimated the value of the right to receive compensation at 25% of the original value.

2. The assessee's cross objection argued that the value of the lost jewellery should be considered 'nil' due to the prolonged litigation and inability to recover the jewellery. The counsel relied on legal precedents and the Select Committee's assurance that lost assets not insured need not be included in net wealth computation.

3. The delay in submitting the cross objection was condoned after considering the reasons provided by the assessee, related to postal delays. The tribunal accepted the cross objection for further consideration.

4. The Departmental Representative contended that the value should not be reduced to Rs. 1,20,000, highlighting discrepancies in the facts presented by the assessee and emphasizing the burden of proof on the assessee to exclude transaction incidents.

5. The tribunal reviewed the submissions and documents, acknowledging the undisputed loss of jewellery by the assessee and the prolonged legal battles without recovery. Referring to the Minister of Finance's assurance, the tribunal held that the right to receive compensation had no market value, thus reducing the value to 'nil'.

6. The tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal and accepted the assessee's cross objection, concluding that the value of jewellery should be considered 'nil' instead of the reduced value of Rs. 1,20,000 set by the Dy. CWT(A).

This detailed analysis covers the valuation dispute, legal arguments, procedural aspects, and the final decision on the appeal and cross objection in the judgment.