9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Competency of appeal against order under s. 61 passed by the Asstt. Controller - Rectification of mistake regarding valuation of jewellery and ornaments - Maintainability of appeal before the Appl. CED - Merits of the case regarding valuation of jewellery Competency of Appeal: The accountable person appealed against the order of the Appl. CED, which rejected the appeal filed by the A.P. as incompetent against the order under s. 61 passed by the Asstt. Controller. The Asstt. CED held that there is no provision for an appeal in s. 62 of the ED Act against an order passed by the Asstt. Controller under s. 61, making the appeal liable to be dismissed. However, the Appl. CED also considered the merits of the appeal and dismissed it, stating that there was no mistake apparent from the record. The Tribunal found the technical objection raised by the Appl. CED invalid and held that the appeal was maintainable, citing relevant legal authorities and precedents. Rectification of Mistake: The Asstt. CED included a sum for the value of gold jewellery in the estate of late Smt. Naini Bai, based on a certain rate per tola. The A.P. filed a petition under s. 61 before the Asstt. Controller, seeking rectification of the mistake regarding the valuation of gold jewellery, arguing that the weight declared represented gross weight and not net weight. The Asstt. Controller rejected the petition, stating there was no mistake apparent from the record. The Tribunal, upon reviewing the case, found that the weight specified in the order represented gross weight only, and directed the Asstt. Controller to adopt the net weight for valuation purposes. Maintainability of Appeal: During the hearing, the ld. Counsel for the assessee argued for the maintainability of the appeal before the Appl. CED, citing relevant legal decisions. The ld. Counsel for the Department contended that technically no appeal lies against the order of the Asstt. Controller under s. 61 of the ED Act. However, the Tribunal considered the arguments of both parties and found the appeal to be maintainable, even if not competent before the Appl. CED, based on legal interpretations and precedents cited by the ld. Counsel for the assessee. Merits of the Case - Valuation of Jewellery: The Tribunal analyzed the total weight and net weight of the jewellery specified in the Asstt. Controller's order, noting discrepancies in the description of weight in terms of grams and tolas. It was observed that the omission to specify the weight in terms of grams was apparent, and the description of weight in tolas represented gross weight only. The Tribunal upheld the contention of the assessee that the value of the jewellery disclosed represented gross weight, directing the Asstt. Controller to adopt the net weight for valuation purposes. Consequently, the appeal was allowed in favor of the accountable person.
|
